From guru at itforchange.net Mon Mar 31 22:43:36 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:13:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for Caipirinyas In-Reply-To: <20080330181729.CF679E0519@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080330181729.CF679E0519@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47F1A158.6020508@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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 28 17:21:50 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:21:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] (REMINDER: Deadline 15 July) 3rd GigaNet Annual Symposium - Hyderabad, 2 December 2008 - Call for Papers Message-ID: [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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GigaNetSymp-CFP2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 104299 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Mar 1 01:36:58 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:36:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > Thanks Stephane. That was helpful. > > I know I may be testing your patience, but can I still seek some further > clarifications. I spoke of the whole working network > itself as a giant application merely to understand what compatibility with a > new system with a different protocol may mean. So, pl excuse my excursion. > It is entirely a temporary construction to try and understand a phenomenon, > which to me is still not understandable. It's perhaps more proper to call TCP/IP a suite of protocols (this is however NOT the same as an application suite like MS Office). It's a collection of protocols, which you can pick and choose from depending on your needs/wants. For example, we monitor our network using SNMP. We don't have to, but if we didn't the ability to do so (use SNMP) would still be there. There is a pretty picture here: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPIPProtocols.htm In fact this (http://www.tcpipguide.com) is a good place to start, it has seperate v4 and v6 sections. > > > > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make it > > > in manner that it is not backward compatible. The promise(s) of IPv6 are many, besides the larger address space, these are usually summarised as, autoconfiguration, better security, integrated QoS, mobility, better routing performance and services, newer unicast and broadcasting methods, etc. Unfortunately for v6 evangelists, these haven't (and won't) be fulfilled until there is a larger installed user base. "Realizing the benefits of IPv6 will take time" http://www.gcn.com/print/25_01/37897-1.html We all focus on the larger address space, as that is the immediate issue. > > > > Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an IP > > address to every human being) to 2^128 > > I know the basic logic of moving to ipv6. My question was different - what > gain was obtained in making this protocol 'in a manner that' did not make it > seamless backward compatible. Or was that the only possibility. > see above. > > > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, > > > or non-seamless-compatibility. Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later renamed IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were made. The answers to all of your questions are freely available online, it's just a matter of how hard you choose to look. > Again, I understand the gains (or inversely, losses). Do you mean to say > that the only way to make these gains - move to a bigger address space and > other benefits - was to make a non-seamlessly-backward-compatible protocol. > That is my question. The only way? Yes, in Panglossian terms, it is ;-) The swarm wisdom of the IETF produced IPv6 long ago. The spec is done, the WG is closed. Their is an installed base, it can't/won't be changed. > > Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or impossible? You will have to read the history (IETF list archives). > Was it a mistake on part of the technical community doing this work? It's a solution to a number of problems/issues with IPv4. Solving these problems required a different packet design. This meant that a v6 packet would not be able to be read by a v4 host natively (and vice versa). It was clearly a trade-off made consciously, and with deliberation. Certainly not an engineering "mistake". Would > they have done differently if they were politically differently inclined, > meaning had different socio-political objectives/ values/ compulsions/ > constraints (I know that this is the tough question, but a very important > one. and one that is impossible to give any meaningful answer to. Read http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1752, and tell me how these criteria would change if the many hundreds of people who worked on it had "different socio-political objectives/ values/ compulsions/". A detailed review of how IPng meets the requirements set down in the IPng Criteria document [Kasten94] will soon be published. Following is our feelings about the extent to which IPng is responsive to the criteria. * complete specification - the base specifications for IPng are complete but transition and address autoconfiguration do remain to be finalized * architectural simplicity - the protocol is simple, easy to explain and uses well established paradigms * scale - an address size of 128 bits easily meets the need to address 10**9 networks even in the face of the inherent inefficiency of address allocation for efficient routing * topological flexibility - the IPng design places no constraints on network topology except for the limit of 255 hops * performance - the simplicity of processing, the alignment of the fields in the headers, and the elimination of the header checksum will allow for high performance handling of IPng data streams * robust service - IPng includes no inhibitors to robust service and the addition of packet-level authentication allows the securing of control and routing protocols without having to have separate procedures * transition - the IPng transition plan is simple and realistically covers the transition methods that will be present in the marketplace * media independence - IPng retains IPv4's media independence, it may be possible to make use of IPng's Flow Label in some connection- oriented media such as ATM * datagram service - IPng preserves datagram service as its basic operational mode, it is possible that the use of path MTU discovery will complicate the use of datagrams in some cases * configuration ease - IPng will have easy and flexible address autoconfiguration which will support a wide variety of environments from nodes on an isolated network to nodes deep in a complex internet * security - IPng includes specific mechanisms for authentication and encryption at the internetwork layer; the security features do rely on the presence of a yet to be defined key management system * unique names - IPng addresses may be used as globally unique names although they do have topological significance * access to standards - all of the IPng standards will be published as RFCs with unlimited distribution * multicast support - IPng specifically includes multicast support * extensibility - the use of extension headers and an expandable header option feature will allow the introduction of new features into IPng when needed in a way that minimizes the disruption of the existing network * service classes - the IPng header includes a Flow Label which may be used to differentiate requested service classes * mobility - the proposed IPv4 mobility functions will work with IPng * control protocol - IPng includes the familiar IPv4 control protocol features * tunneling support - encapsulation of IPng or other protocols within IPng is a basic capability described in the IPng specifications Connects the technical domain to the socio-political) > > Sorry for asking so many questions. Hope I am not getting on the nerves of > all the technical experts here. Thanks I think that some determined research on your part would reveal the answers to your questions. Google is your friend here. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 1 02:25:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:55:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <02C20A9F-E414-4778-917D-E18032098AA3@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <20080301072606.CA719E2C0B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was advice on the list against saying so. which later extended to that we should not say anything about any other group's representation and just say CS is under-represented. Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is important for CS to be upfront and say these things when the occasion arises and not pussyfoot as we often tend to do. We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily climbing though many different means, and this is a cause of concern etc.Let them not do anything about this, but let them know that's what we think... Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent gov representation it says "However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained." Note the part 'the group was informed'. what does that mean!! Who informed the group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what the group itself seem to have deliberated and decided. but this is about something the group having been told . BY WHOM Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should stay as purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive identity / authority of its own, would note that we can keep expecting more and more of these diktats from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever even reach out to, much less influence. Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin Desai, who as SG's Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence on SG's decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in guard. In any case there are many others who have great influence with SG's office and that is showing.. In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major opportunity. Now it may be too late to even call for it. An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times that there is no insistence on the name 'bureau' and whatever goes with it. So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office. No point ruing it. Parminder _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who were in Geneva think about this. Thanks, Robin On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: The most telling point here appears to be >However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members >proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained. Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really multistakeholder? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008 12:14 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 08:18 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 1 02:29:47 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:59:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <007501c87b6e$08ef0400$1acd0c00$@net> > Would > > they have done differently if they were politically differently > inclined, > and one that is impossible to give any meaningful answer to. As McTim says there's little or nothing at all in that decision making process that is likely to have changed based on political and social theories. Parminder, I do think you need to take that course I suggested, or read up on some of the links McTim pointed out. They'll help clear a lot of these doubts about non issues, that you have. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 1 02:31:10 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:01:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080301072606.CA719E2C0B@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <02C20A9F-E414-4778-917D-E18032098AA3@ipjustice.org> <20080301072606.CA719E2C0B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <007601c87b6e$3a60a390$af21eab0$@net> .. and did you by any chance expect anything different even if you had noisily and stridently demanded it? From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times that there is no insistence on the name 'bureau' and whatever goes with it. So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office. No point ruing it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 1 02:54:59 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:24:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080301072606.CA719E2C0B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080301075511.95F7E6781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> More analysis on the MAG summary report The best part is that they have agreed to discuss focused specific issues - I think that is a big step forward. We now have something at the IGF. Issues can keep changing, and we can have a better set next year, till we are clear that we need specific issues of public policy importance to discus at the IGF. The issues chosen this year are also closer to being clear public policy issues, so that's a great gain as well. (more comments on these mentioned issues later) Equally important, there is a new category of ' main workshops' that will be linked to the main sessions, and be on topics chosen by the MAG, though organized by different set of stakeholders. So this is the category of workshops, as we asked for, which will be relatively tightly managed, and along with the main session serve the purpose of giving directions to global Internet public polices.. At some later stage a separate outcome document on each of the choosen specific topic, though not mentioned in the present summary, will not be a difficult next step. So, we are making progress. I think I read Nitin's summing up right - he seemed inclined to go towards specific topics, but was non committal on WGs... Well, we can keep that for the next time.. (MAG members, was there any discussion on WGs at all) One of the biggest gains also is the acceptance to make the 'taking stock and way forward session' as a review of IGF vis a vis its mandate "The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate" A big step forward building on IGC's workshop of the last year... I think it is obvious that IGC will get to organize a 'main workshop' on the mandate issue again, and that can play an important role in the evaluation of IGF in the main session of 'taking stock and the way forward'. I have some comments on the specific topics as chosen by the MAG, but that in the next email Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was advice on the list against saying so. which later extended to that we should not say anything about any other group's representation and just say CS is under-represented. Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is important for CS to be upfront and say these things when the occasion arises and not pussyfoot as we often tend to do. We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily climbing though many different means, and this is a cause of concern etc.Let them not do anything about this, but let them know that's what we think... Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent gov representation it says "However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained." Note the part 'the group was informed'. what does that mean!! Who informed the group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what the group itself seem to have deliberated and decided. but this is about something the group having been told . BY WHOM Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should stay as purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive identity / authority of its own, would note that we can keep expecting more and more of these diktats from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever even reach out to, much less influence. Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin Desai, who as SG's Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence on SG's decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in guard. In any case there are many others who have great influence with SG's office and that is showing.. In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major opportunity. Now it may be too late to even call for it. An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times that there is no insistence on the name 'bureau' and whatever goes with it. So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office. No point ruing it. Parminder _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who were in Geneva think about this. Thanks, Robin On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: The most telling point here appears to be >However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members >proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained. Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really multistakeholder? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008 12:14 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 08:18 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 1 02:58:17 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:28:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <007601c87b6e$3a60a390$af21eab0$@net> References: <02C20A9F-E414-4778-917D-E18032098AA3@ipjustice.org> <20080301072606.CA719E2C0B@smtp3.electricembers.net> <007601c87b6e$3a60a390$af21eab0$@net> Message-ID: <008101c87b72$065a2b80$130e8280$@net> Let me expand on that a bit. And on the mistakes in this process that led to what I would describe as having some positive outcomes but several that are decidedly less than optimal Ignoring “reachable” goals and getting fired up with a zeal to overturn an existing system and substitute your own – especially where that existing system is much more multistakeholder than you imagine it is, was not the way to go about this at all. What all went wrong? Plenty. 1. Expecting any incumbent stakeholders, especially governments, to marginalize or dilute their own stakes was naïve – the “Reconstituting MAG” part of this discussion a. Even worse were the attempts to alienate and exclude of your natural allies – the “technical community” that some of you continue to deny even exists as a stakeholder group. b. A certain lack of familiarity with technical issues – for which that bridge course between policy and tech that Izumi san and I were discussing, would certainly help as well 2. An even worse mistake was allowing a larger theme of Internet governance to get compressed into a demand of governance and oversight (even soft oversight) over ICANN (and I think, implied, over the RIRs) was a huge blunder a. Especially when there are ample opportunities for change, and for consensus development, within ICANN, and even more so within the RIRs – which are entirely member driven in terms of operations and governance. b. You’d have been much better served actively participating in ICANN’s NCUC (as well as the various other ICANN constituencies that other people here belong to), and in the RIR public comment and consensus processes. c. A major problem – at least in my view - is that a substantial part of this ended up getting based on the IGP paper, and its associated baggage of petty politics and rivalries spread over the best part of a decade now. At least, some of the ideas there got weeded out (thanks, Bill Drake, Adam Peake etc) In short, civil society just barely escaped shooting themselves in the foot out there at the IGF. Now, after having pointed this out all along, I will resist the temptation to simply sit back and say “I told you so”. Please, repeat please, participate in the very processes you’re trying to supplant. And please please remember that “the technical community” is on your side. Right now, instead of shooting yourself in the foot, you do have a foot in the door, a foot that you need to supplement with another foot in the place where the real work will actually take place – the current structure (ICANN, RIRs, etc). suresh From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available .. and did you by any chance expect anything different even if you had noisily and stridently demanded it? From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times that there is no insistence on the name ‘bureau’ and whatever goes with it So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office No point ruing it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 1 03:25:16 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:55:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080301075511.95F7E6781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080301082526.D54D567833@smtp1.electricembers.net> On the substantive issues proposed for main sessions at Hyderabad. One the first look none of the themes we suggested are there. But since this is the first time IGF is going towards specific topics, we can understand that there must have been a lot of unease among some, and effort at not ruffling feathers etc.. So, I can still see that some of the topics we want discussed can seem buried in the listed text.. I also understand that there is going to be a further process of fine-tuning of these topics - and we need to really be ready to influence that process in all ways that we can. Main sessions are under two overall themes "Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (alternate title: Expanding the Internet)", and, "Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet)" Under the "Universalization of the Internet' are listed three possible topics of discussion Low cost sustainable access :Multilingualization :Implications for development policy And under 'managing the Internet' Critical Internet resources Arrangements for Internet governance Global cooperation for Internet security and stability I understand that these topics will be further refined, so that we have the opportunity to turn them towards what we want discussed. The summary does mention that Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include: . Enabling growth and innovation . Capacity building . The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet . Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 . Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6 . Topics beyond IP addressing Going back to the topics we suggested, 'development agenda' will have to seek some toehold around the part on 'implications for development policy' ( I know, Bill, your take is more global institutional) . Enhanced cooperation will have to fit into 'managing the Internet' part, and in the same topic (probably, the sub topic - arrangements for the Internet) the issue of 'transparency and participation' in IG institutions. Network neutrality doesn't seem it can come in anywhere. There will be a lot of very hot discussions and some degree of machination around what topics really make to the IGF form this overall canvass, and there is a lot for all of us to do in this regard. One can already see the battle-lines in the way the main themes and possible alternatives are listed. "Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (alternate title: Expanding the Internet)", and, "Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet)" No prizes for guessing who was pushing for what. Universalization of Internet is the social policy language, 'how to reach the next billion' and 'expanding the Internet' are market and business sector language... Similarly, 'managing the Internet' is a softer version of 'governance of the Internet' and 'using the Internet' (no idea what it could mean) is an effort to escape discussing policy and governance angles of the Internet. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:25 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available More analysis on the MAG summary report The best part is that they have agreed to discuss focused specific issues - I think that is a big step forward. We now have something at the IGF. Issues can keep changing, and we can have a better set next year, till we are clear that we need specific issues of public policy importance to discus at the IGF. The issues chosen this year are also closer to being clear public policy issues, so that's a great gain as well. (more comments on these mentioned issues later) Equally important, there is a new category of ' main workshops' that will be linked to the main sessions, and be on topics chosen by the MAG, though organized by different set of stakeholders. So this is the category of workshops, as we asked for, which will be relatively tightly managed, and along with the main session serve the purpose of giving directions to global Internet public polices.. At some later stage a separate outcome document on each of the choosen specific topic, though not mentioned in the present summary, will not be a difficult next step. So, we are making progress. I think I read Nitin's summing up right - he seemed inclined to go towards specific topics, but was non committal on WGs... Well, we can keep that for the next time.. (MAG members, was there any discussion on WGs at all) One of the biggest gains also is the acceptance to make the 'taking stock and way forward session' as a review of IGF vis a vis its mandate "The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate" A big step forward building on IGC's workshop of the last year... I think it is obvious that IGC will get to organize a 'main workshop' on the mandate issue again, and that can play an important role in the evaluation of IGF in the main session of 'taking stock and the way forward'. I have some comments on the specific topics as chosen by the MAG, but that in the next email Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Robin Gross'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was advice on the list against saying so. which later extended to that we should not say anything about any other group's representation and just say CS is under-represented. Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is important for CS to be upfront and say these things when the occasion arises and not pussyfoot as we often tend to do. We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily climbing though many different means, and this is a cause of concern etc.Let them not do anything about this, but let them know that's what we think... Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent gov representation it says "However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained." Note the part 'the group was informed'. what does that mean!! Who informed the group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what the group itself seem to have deliberated and decided. but this is about something the group having been told . BY WHOM Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should stay as purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive identity / authority of its own, would note that we can keep expecting more and more of these diktats from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever even reach out to, much less influence. Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin Desai, who as SG's Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence on SG's decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in guard. In any case there are many others who have great influence with SG's office and that is showing.. In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major opportunity. Now it may be too late to even call for it. An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times that there is no insistence on the name 'bureau' and whatever goes with it. So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office. No point ruing it. Parminder _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who were in Geneva think about this. Thanks, Robin On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: The most telling point here appears to be >However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members >proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained. Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really multistakeholder? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008 12:14 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 08:18 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Mar 1 03:56:11 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:56:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080301072606.CA719E2C0B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, On MAG composition, Parminder¹s ³Not that things would have changed if we had said so² seems like an understatement. Obviously there are pressures being brought to bear offline that significantly trump anything we might say, so stomping our feet rather than Œpussyfooting¹ by specifying exactly how many bodies from which groups we think there should be probably would have just been picking losing fights. Saying CS is underrepresented was adequate for our main concern and obviously, rectifying it would mean taking from overrepresented groups. That said, ³While not perfect, the balance of the current MAG was felt to be reasonable.² So voila. Robin says there are four Russian govt advisors. Not being on MAG, I don¹t know where she¹s seeing this, would appreciate clarification. The list on the website still shows the Brazilian contingent. Let me raise a different issue: the program. I thought it a bit odd at the consultation when Nitin switched agenda items 3 and 4 around, so that we spent a big chunk of time after lunch hearing ³reports from related activities² before finally getting around, with just one hour left, to what I¹d have thought should be the main focus of a consultation, ³The 2008 Meeting.² After the Indian presentation of the conference site there was not much time left, people were tired, and many had gone when it was finally the moment to talk about what stakeholders might like to see in the main sessions. In this environment, we introduced the caucus¹ four proposals, APC, Switzerland, Brazil offered theirs, there were a few shorter comments, and then we were out of time. There was no possibility for serious follow on discussion concerning any of the proposals (although Brazil, Switzerland, and APC did indicate support for the Development Agenda concept). Now looking at the MAG summary, I see no connection between our proposals and the two schedules under consideration. Certainly the words enhanced cooperation, net neutrality, development agenda, and transparency/inclusion do not appear. In contrast, ³the next billion² and ³managing² (not governing, per ISOC circa 2003) the net are on both. So voila. Interesting process. Hopefully the packed schedules of main sessions will also accommodate a fairly unrestricted number of workshops, as these would seem the only option to pursue any of our proposals. Best, Bill On 3/1/08 8:25 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are > over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was advice on > the list against saying soŠ which later extended to that we should not say > anything about any other group¹s representation and just say CS is > under-represented. > > Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is important for > CS to be upfront and say these things when the occasion arises and not > pussyfoot as we often tend to do. > > We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily climbing though > many different means, and this is a cause of concern etcŠLet them not do > anything about this, but let them know that¹s what we thinkŠ.. > > Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. > > The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent gov > representation it says > ³However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% > of its members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, > would be maintained.² > Note the part Œthe group was informed¹Š what does that mean!! Who informed the > group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what the group itself seem to > have deliberated and decidedŠ but this is about something the group having > been told Š BY WHOM > > Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? > > Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should stay as > purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive identity / authority > of its own, would note that we can keep expecting more and more of these > diktats from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever even reach out to, > much less influenceŠ Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin Desai, who > as SG¹s Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence on SG¹s > decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in guard. In any > case there are many others who have great influence with SG¹s office and that > is showingŠ. > > In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major opportunity. > Now it may be too late to even call for it. > > An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the energy > though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times that there > is no insistence on the name Œbureau¹ and whatever goes with itŠ So now you > have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves colluded in > handing over all powers to the UN SG officeŠ No point ruing it. > > Parminder > > > > > > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are > added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt representation. > For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian govt listed as > special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would need such > disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go to Geneva > to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to whether > such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait de complis > or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who were in > Geneva think about this. > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > > On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > The most telling point here appears to be >> >However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% >> of its members >> >proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be >> maintained. > Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really > multistakeholder? > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > www.internetmark2.org > > www.nethistory.info > > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] > Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; > bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org > Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this > week is on the IGF website: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf > > Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 1 04:15:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:45:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080301091531.B2395A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> McTim > It's a solution to a number of problems/issues with IPv4. > > Solving these problems required a different packet design. This meant > that a v6 packet would not be able to be read by a v4 host natively > (and vice versa). Well, that the answer to my question. So, you do say that, within plausible limits, there was no possible design for a v6 packet that could do all it does now and still be read by v4 host and vice versa. Fine. Though there is a connected issue (which was also my question) that if we had kept this condition - that v6 packet JUST SHOULD BE ABLE to be read by v4 host and vice versa - as an important, and lets say for argument's sake, an incontrovertible condition, what all functionality of a v6 system will be lost to us. If we knew this, then we can seek to do a political trade off between the seamless-compatibility objective and these other objectives which were simply not possible if we insisted on seamless compatibility. I am sure this above formulation is no more complex than all the technical specification formulations that you forward to me and I read them all, and am not complaining :). When you say >> >> Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or impossible? >You will have to read the history (IETF list archives). And also >> > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of > > non-compatibility, > > or non-seamless-compatibility. >Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later renamed >IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were made. You are pointing to me to the IETFs history docs on the crucial aspect of my questions. But do we, (and you) as someone interested in tech governance have no views at all on whether the v6 transition problem we are faced with, which by all estimates is huge, could have been avoided by an alternative design. Can we afford to not give any thought to this, and not have any view on this.... Did you never think of investigating, and forming a view on this. The swarm wisdom of the IETF > produced IPv6 long ago. The spec is done, the WG is closed. Their is > an installed base, it can't/won't be changed. That's not a sufficient response. We may not be able to change it. But we need to understand under what conditions crucial decisions that impact all of us are taken, and see how we can improve those conditions and processes. That's all what constitutes discussing IG, and thats what we are here on this list doing, as I understand it. And about the 'IPng Criteria document [Kasten94]' that you have quoted, why couldn't there be a specific criterion there that 'v6 packet should be able to be read by v4 host and vice versa'.... it isn't there, any good reasons?? And when they put done this criterion > * transition - the IPng transition plan is simple and realistically > covers the transition methods that will be present in the > marketplace >From what we know around us today, they obviously did not get it right. I can think of one possible reason why they did not put in a seamless-compatibility criterion (not saying that was their reason, but just exploring the possible reasons bec I think we need to understand the circumstance under which such an imp decision was taken). It could be that if two protocols were perfectly compatible, there would not be enough incentive among most users to shift to the new protocol. It will create two layers of the Internet - those who can enjoy all the functionalities of the much more superior v6 protocol and those who are struck with v4. Well, that at its face would be a very good reason for IETF for doing what they did. But this imperative needed to be discussed more widely, among circles outside the IETF, and evaluated against the problems that a non-compatible protocols based transition will cause and such....thats the kind of tech-policy interface issue that, rightly, takes up most of our energies on this list. So, while I thank you for all the links you have sent (you have been as engaging and through as ever) and I will use google as well, but as my email describes above, the issue is not about a set of facts which have a clear answer out there. If there were some such clear answer, someone on this list would have told me that. And I havent got that answer. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:07 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Stephane. That was helpful. > > > > I know I may be testing your patience, but can I still seek some > further > > clarifications. > I spoke of the whole working network > > itself as a giant application merely to understand what compatibility > with a > > new system with a different protocol may mean. So, pl excuse my > excursion. > > It is entirely a temporary construction to try and understand a > phenomenon, > > which to me is still not understandable. > > > It's perhaps more proper to call TCP/IP a suite of protocols (this is > however NOT the same as an application suite like MS Office). > It's a collection of protocols, which you can pick and choose from > depending on your needs/wants. For example, we monitor our network > using SNMP. We don't have to, but if we didn't the ability to do so > (use SNMP) would still be there. > > There is a pretty picture here: > > http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPIPProtocols.htm > > In fact this (http://www.tcpipguide.com) is a good place to start, it > has seperate v4 and v6 sections. > > > > > > > (2) What special gains were obtained in the new design v6 to make > it > > > > in manner that it is not backward compatible. > > The promise(s) of IPv6 are many, besides the larger address space, > these are usually summarised as, autoconfiguration, better security, > integrated QoS, mobility, better routing performance and services, > newer unicast and broadcasting methods, etc. Unfortunately for v6 > evangelists, these haven't (and won't) be fulfilled until there is a > larger installed user base. > > "Realizing the benefits of IPv6 will take time" > http://www.gcn.com/print/25_01/37897-1.html > > We all focus on the larger address space, as that is the immediate issue. > > > > > > > > Extension of the addressing space. From 2^32 (not enough to give an > IP > > > address to every human being) to 2^128 > > > > I know the basic logic of moving to ipv6. My question was different - > what > > gain was obtained in making this protocol 'in a manner that' did not > make it > > seamless backward compatible. Or was that the only possibility. > > > > see above. > > > > > > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, > > > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later > renamed IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were > made. > > The answers to all of your questions are freely available online, it's > just a matter of how hard you choose to look. > > > Again, I understand the gains (or inversely, losses). Do you mean to > say > > that the only way to make these gains - move to a bigger address space > and > > other benefits - was to make a non-seamlessly-backward-compatible > protocol. > > That is my question. > > The only way? > > Yes, in Panglossian terms, it is ;-) The swarm wisdom of the IETF > produced IPv6 long ago. The spec is done, the WG is closed. Their is > an installed base, it can't/won't be changed. > > > > > Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or > impossible? > > You will have to read the history (IETF list archives). > > > Was it a mistake on part of the technical community doing this work? > > It's a solution to a number of problems/issues with IPv4. > > Solving these problems required a different packet design. This meant > that a v6 packet would not be able to be read by a v4 host natively > (and vice versa). > > It was clearly a trade-off made consciously, and with deliberation. > Certainly not an engineering "mistake". > > Would > > they have done differently if they were politically differently > inclined, > > meaning had different socio-political objectives/ values/ compulsions/ > > constraints (I know that this is the tough question, but a very > important > > one. > > and one that is impossible to give any meaningful answer to. > > Read http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1752, and tell me how these > criteria would change if the many hundreds of people who worked on it > had "different socio-political objectives/ values/ compulsions/". > > > > A detailed review of how IPng meets the requirements set down in the > IPng Criteria document [Kasten94] will soon be published. Following > is our feelings about the extent to which IPng is responsive to the > criteria. > > * complete specification - the base specifications for IPng are > complete but transition and address autoconfiguration do remain to > be finalized > * architectural simplicity - the protocol is simple, easy to explain > and uses well established paradigms > * scale - an address size of 128 bits easily meets the need to > address 10**9 networks even in the face of the inherent > inefficiency of address allocation for efficient routing > * topological flexibility - the IPng design places no constraints on > network topology except for the limit of 255 hops > * performance - the simplicity of processing, the alignment of the > fields in the headers, and the elimination of the header checksum > will allow for high performance handling of IPng data streams > * robust service - IPng includes no inhibitors to robust service and > the addition of packet-level authentication allows the securing of > control and routing protocols without having to have separate > procedures > * transition - the IPng transition plan is simple and realistically > covers the transition methods that will be present in the > marketplace > * media independence - IPng retains IPv4's media independence, it may > be possible to make use of IPng's Flow Label in some connection- > oriented media such as ATM > * datagram service - IPng preserves datagram service as its basic > operational mode, it is possible that the use of path MTU discovery > will complicate the use of datagrams in some cases > * configuration ease - IPng will have easy and flexible address > autoconfiguration which will support a wide variety of environments > from nodes on an isolated network to nodes deep in a complex > internet > * security - IPng includes specific mechanisms for authentication and > encryption at the internetwork layer; the security features do > rely on the presence of a yet to be defined key management system > * unique names - IPng addresses may be used as globally unique names > although they do have topological significance > * access to standards - all of the IPng standards will be published > as RFCs with unlimited distribution > * multicast support - IPng specifically includes multicast support > * extensibility - the use of extension headers and an expandable > header option feature will allow the introduction of new features > into IPng when needed in a way that minimizes the disruption of the > existing network > * service classes - the IPng header includes a Flow Label which may > be used to differentiate requested service classes > * mobility - the proposed IPv4 mobility functions will work with IPng > * control protocol - IPng includes the familiar IPv4 control protocol > features > * tunneling support - encapsulation of IPng or other protocols within > IPng is a basic capability described in the IPng specifications > > > > > > > > Connects the technical domain to the socio-political) > > > > Sorry for asking so many questions. Hope I am not getting on the nerves > of > > all the technical experts here. Thanks > > I think that some determined research on your part would reveal the > answers to your questions. Google is your friend here. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Mar 1 05:05:22 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:05:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Hi, > >On MAG composition, Parminder¹s ³Not that things >would have changed if we had said so² seems like >an understatement.  Obviously there are >pressures being brought to bear offline that >significantly trump anything we might say, so >stomping our feet rather than Œpussyfooting¹ by >specifying exactly how many bodies from which >groups we think there should be probably would >have just been picking losing fights.  Saying CS >is underrepresented was adequate for our main >concern and obviously, rectifying it would mean >taking from overrepresented groups.  That said, >³While not perfect, the balance of the current >MAG was felt to be reasonable.²  So voila. > >Robin says there are four Russian govt advisors.   They weren't really "advisers", just people in the room. They had no special status, they did not speak (as chairs advisers are allowed to do.) And it was challenged. But it is very difficult to tell govt to get out, particularly difficult when the country is a permanent member of the security council. From now on MAG meetings will take a rollcall of people in the room, I hope the rollcall will be made public. This situation probably won't happen again. Thinks it's now under control... Adam >Not being on MAG, I don¹t know where she¹s >seeing this, would appreciate clarification. > The list on the website still shows the >Brazilian contingent.   > >Let me raise a different issue: the program.  I >thought it a bit odd at the consultation when >Nitin switched agenda items 3 and 4 around, so >that we spent a big chunk of time after lunch >hearing ³reports from related activities² before >finally getting around, with just one hour left, >to what I¹d have thought should be the main >focus of a consultation, ³The 2008 Meeting.² > After the Indian presentation of the conference >site there was not much time left, people were >tired, and many had gone when it was finally the >moment to talk about what stakeholders might >like to see in the main sessions.  In this >environment, we introduced the caucus¹ four >proposals, APC, Switzerland, Brazil offered >theirs, there were a few shorter comments, and >then we were out of time.  There was no >possibility for serious follow on discussion >concerning any of the proposals (although >Brazil, Switzerland, and APC did indicate >support for the Development Agenda concept). > >Now looking at the MAG summary, I see no >connection between our proposals and the two >schedules under consideration.  Certainly the >words enhanced cooperation, net neutrality, >development agenda, and transparency/inclusion >do not appear. In contrast, ³the next billion² >and ³managing² (not governing, per ISOC circa >2003) the net are on both.  So voila. > Interesting process. > >Hopefully the packed schedules of main sessions >will also accommodate a fairly unrestricted >number of workshops, as these would seem the >only option to pursue any of our proposals. > >Best, > >Bill > > > > >On 3/1/08 8:25 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > >Our original draft statement did say clearly >that governments are over-represented, and that >this should be corrected. But there was advice >on the list against saying soŠ which later >extended to that we should not say anything >about any other group¹s representation and just >say CS is under-represented. > >Not that things would have changed if we had >said so, but it is important for CS to be >upfront and say these things when the occasion >arises and not pussyfoot as we often tend to do. > >We can still write to them that gov >representation is steadily climbing though many >different means, and this is  a cause of concern >etcŠLet them not do anything about this, but let >them know that¹s what we thinkŠ.. > >Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. > >The worst part is that where the summary talks >about 50 percent gov representation it says >³However, the group was informed that the >current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its >members  proposed by governments and 50% by >other stakeholder groups, would be maintained.² >Note the part Œthe group was informed¹Š what >does that mean!! Who informed the group. Rest of >the summary is written in form of what the group >itself seem to have deliberated and decidedŠ but >this is about something the group having been >told Š BY WHOM > >Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? > >Also those among us who have been of the opinion >that MAG should stay as purely an advisory body >to UN SG, and have no substantive identity / >authority of its own, would note that we can >keep expecting more and more of these diktats >from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever >even reach out to, much less influenceŠ Putting >too much faith in one person, Nitin Desai,  who >as SG¹s Special Advisor, we may think has the >greater influence on SG¹s decisions has limits, >and may backfire when there is a change in >guard. In any case there are many others who >have great influence with SG¹s office and that >is showingŠ. > >In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS >has lost a major opportunity. Now it may be too >late to even call for it. > >An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau >mean took away all the energy though those who >called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times >that there is no insistence on the name Œbureau¹ >and whatever goes with itŠ So now you have your >MAG which is government loaded because we >ourselves colluded in handing over all powers to >the UN SG officeŠ No point ruing it.   > >Parminder > > > > > > >From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > >This point concerns me also. And especially when >the "special advisors" are added into the mix, >there is an even higher percentage of govt >representation. For example there are 4 >representatives from the Russian govt listed as >special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host >country would need such disproportionate >influence in the process. But I wasn't able to >go to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so >I don't have a good sense as to whether such a >high percentage of govt representation of the >MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. >I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who >were in Geneva think about this. > > > >Thanks, > >Robin > > > > >On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > >The most telling point here appears to be >>However, the group was informed that the >>current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its >>members >>proposed by governments and 50% by other >>stakeholder groups, would be maintained. >Is there any way to challenge whether 50% >government is really multistakeholder? > >Ian Peter > >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > >Australia > >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >www.ianpeter.com > >www.internetmark2.org > >www.nethistory.info > > >From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; >a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; >bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; >privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org >Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > >Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory >Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF >website: > >http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf > >Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Mar 1 05:07:46 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:07:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: >The most telling point here appears to be > > >However, the group was informed that the >current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members > >proposed by governments and 50% by other >stakeholder groups, would be maintained. > > >Is there any way to challenge whether 50% >government is really multistakeholder? > No. Five regions, and within those five regions four reps cover the traditional UN sub-groups, 5x4 = 20. We were told 20 govt was the basic minimum acceptable for govt to be able to advise the UN SG (advising the SG being the purpose of the MAG and the SG being the UN...) It wasn't negotiable, so something we just accept. No, not happy, but wasn't possible to change. If the MAG is above 40 then the proportion of "others" might increase. Arguing about the number of other stakeholders wouldn't have been productive (and could have been very counter productive.) A number of people noted members have connections to difference stakeholder groups. Our best chance of increasing the proportion CS members is to continue to argue CS is under represented. Adam >Ian Peter >Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com >www.internetmark2.org >www.nethistory.info > > >From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; >a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; >bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; >privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org >Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > >Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory >Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF >website: > >  http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf > >Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. > > >Best, >Robin > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261  f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: >http://www.ipjustice.org > e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 >- Release Date: 28/02/2008 12:14 > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 >- Release Date: 29/02/2008 08:18 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Mar 1 05:15:24 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:15:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080301082526.D54D567833@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080301082526.D54D567833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 1:55 PM +0530 3/1/08, Parminder wrote: >On the substantive issues proposed for main sessions at Hyderabad. > (snip) > >One can already see the battle-lines in the way >the main themes and possible alternatives are >listed. > >³Universalization of the Internet - How to reach >the next billion (alternate title: Expanding the >Internet)², and,  ³Managing the Internet >(alternate title: Using the Internet)² > >No prizes for guessing who was pushing for what.   OK >Universalization of Internet is the social >policy language, Œhow to reach the next billion¹ >and Œexpanding the Internet¹ are market and >business sector languageŠ.. Chatham house, not allowed to attribute comments. But I think I can say you don't get a prize. There is room in the draft for us to propose all the topics we think important. So let's not think about "battle lines" but wait for the call for workshops, etc. We can respond to the draft program outlines now (the summary of the MAG meeting is six pages), and it would be good to think about our response. A positive approach will likely be more successful, and more interesting (who enjoys volunteering to be miserable...) From the MAG summary: "The final programme will be defined in light of the proposals made for holding workshops and best practice forums. In order to speed up planning all interested stakeholders are invited to submit proposals by 30 April. Preference will be given to organizers who submitted a report of events they staged in Rio de Janeiro." If you held a workshop and haven't yet submitted a report, please submit that report. 500-800 words isn't much to ask in return for a space on the agenda of an important international meeting (free). And these reports become part of the unofficial proceedings of the IGF, so would be pretty dumb to argue for the IGF to produce outcomes and then not bother to contribute. We have about 8 weeks to get proposals in. Earlier the better. I'm travelling until next weekend, probably won't be replying in much detail. 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Sat Mar 1 05:48:55 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:48:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080301082526.D54D567833@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080301082526.D54D567833@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47C93497.8080807@panos-ao.org> Parminder a écrit : > > On the substantive issues proposed for main sessions at Hyderabad. > In fact, regarding the themes/sub-themes to be discussed, we can not consider now that things are already decided. I agree with Parminder that some ideas mentioned in the IGC statements appear more or less in the MAG report (for example having a session on IGF mandate), but these are just notes of what people said (in general). It's the next MAG (renewed with 2/3 of the current members probably) who will make the final proposals (and the "Secretary General" will decide). So what appears as gains may still be challenged. Sometimes, ideas put in the report may seem even contradictory a bit, but it was to reflect main discussions. For example, a group of stakeholders proposed an alternative agenda which was a bit discussed and some thought that some ideas of that agenda are also valid and might be considered. Another illustration is that we have various options in the following phrasings : “Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (alternate title: Expanding the Internet)”, and, “Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet)” The "development agenda" was not noted phrased like that, some questioned the meaning of that concept, and finally it's "Implications for development policy" that was noted in the report. However it's sure that it's along ideas in the reports that an important part of the programme in India will be designed. Regarding the 50/50 split (gov and others), I'm not sure we could have changed things. Even some say governments were still underrepresented....I agree we should keep calling for a better representation of CS. Regards 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 1 06:04:58 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:34:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080301110510.67C1EA6CB4@smtp2.electricembers.net> Adam > There is room in the draft for us to propose all > the topics we think important. So let's not > think about "battle lines" but wait for the call > for workshops, etc. We can respond to the draft > program outlines now (the summary of the MAG > meeting is six pages), and it would be good to > think about our response. A positive approach > will likely be more successful, and more > interesting (who enjoys volunteering to be > miserable...) I have already said in my email that there is scope to ge the issues we want discussed even into the main sessions, and some flexibility seems to be still open in this regard. Other than that, one needs to balance what you call a 'positive approach' to being strident on pushing what is important... And I say what I said about 'battle-lines' and what to expect when these issues will be scoped put in further MAG meetings with the benefit of experience. Remember what happened last time, how elements about public and community financing disappeared form the text without any explanation. To refresh your memory I am enclosing my email on the subject. To quote for this email "In the new draft program ( www.intgovforum.org/ ) under the theme “access” two important points which were there in the earlier drafts (enclosed) have mysteriously disappeared. These are “Market and non-market structures and their relationship to competition and investment in fostering innovation and alternative business models” and “Public Infrastructure and the role of public and private finance in providing access”. As one can see both the formulations were already quite balanced taking all different .perspectives into consideration. So, what is the justification in removing them? These issues had come on the agenda because of civil society inputs. Who would have been instrumental in removing them? Significantly, this removal has happened while the list of points in each theme has actually become longer." For us this is not a small issue. This kind of rigging the agenda is the whole issue, and often one has to go beyond 'positive approach' to counter this. BTW, did you notice that in the present 'summary of MAG deliberations' while a useful topic of “Low cost sustainable access” is listed, the only possible specific topic under this which is listed is "the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and India's success." First of all there is a problem of going from the overall topic of 'universalisation of the Internet' to the topic of 'low cost sustainable access'. Havent you heard of public programs of free access in most developed countries. Why isn’t that a policy option. Why can t developing countries too have it. And there are numerous places where community ownership/ finance is increasingly employed. And then within 'low cost sustainable access' we go further to the specific topic of 'role of entrepreneurship....' Could public and community finance and models also figure here please. Heard of Muni wifi programs in the North? Or is IGF to do what most ICTD forums do, and serve as marketing spaces for multinational telecoms. Isnt this going exactly the way it went in with the process of agenda development in Rio. (ITfC is happy and proud that its rep on the panel did manage to bring the issue of public finance centre stage to the discussions) I will request CS MAG members to be as vigilant in pushing this kind of progressive agenda in as the business sector and ISOC are in marketising development and Internet and everything that they can lay their hands on. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 3:45 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > At 1:55 PM +0530 3/1/08, Parminder wrote: > >On the substantive issues proposed for main sessions at Hyderabad. > > > > > (snip) > > > > > >One can already see the battle-lines in the way > >the main themes and possible alternatives are > >listed. > > > >³Universalization of the Internet - How to reach > >the next billion (alternate title: Expanding the > >Internet)², and, ³Managing the Internet > >(alternate title: Using the Internet)² > > > >No prizes for guessing who was pushing for what. > > > OK > > > >Universalization of Internet is the social > >policy language, Œhow to reach the next billion¹ > >and Œexpanding the Internet¹ are market and > >business sector languageŠ.. > > > Chatham house, not allowed to attribute comments. > But I think I can say you don't get a prize. > > There is room in the draft for us to propose all > the topics we think important. So let's not > think about "battle lines" but wait for the call > for workshops, etc. We can respond to the draft > program outlines now (the summary of the MAG > meeting is six pages), and it would be good to > think about our response. A positive approach > will likely be more successful, and more > interesting (who enjoys volunteering to be > miserable...) > > From the MAG summary: > > "The final programme will be defined in light of > the proposals made for holding workshops and > best practice forums. In order to speed up > planning all interested stakeholders are invited > to submit proposals by 30 April. Preference will > be given to organizers who submitted a report of > events they staged in Rio de Janeiro." > > If you held a workshop and haven't yet submitted > a report, please submit that report. 500-800 > words isn't much to ask in return for a space on > the agenda of an important international meeting > (free). And these reports become part of the > unofficial proceedings of the IGF, so would be > pretty dumb to argue for the IGF to produce > outcomes and then not bother to contribute. > > We have about 8 weeks to get proposals in. Earlier the better. > > I'm travelling until next weekend, probably won't be replying in much > detail. > > 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 -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: [governance] Is 'access' important (vis a vis CIRs) or is it MNCs telecom businesses Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:03:48 +0530 Size: 78835 URL: From avri at psg.com Sat Mar 1 06:34:46 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:34:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080301110510.67C1EA6CB4@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080301110510.67C1EA6CB4@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2008, at 12:04, Parminder wrote: > BTW, did you notice that in the present 'summary of MAG > deliberations' while a useful topic of “Low cost sustainable > access” is listed, the only possible specific topic under this which > is listed is "the role of > entrepreneurship in providing low cost sustainable access with a > special focus on entrepreneurship and India's success." that is _not_ the only possible topic, that is the only topic that happens to be on the list at this point in time. I think there is lots of opportunity for other possible topics to be added to this list. > I will request CS MAG members to be as vigilant in pushing this kind > of progressive agenda i believe they will be helped by lots of strong, focused proposals. and as Adam says, the sooner the better. but please, everyone pay special attention to the opportunity to still get in reports on the workshops that show the importance of these topics and how/why they were interesting and vital to those who participated. > in as the business sector and ISOC are in marketising development > and Internet and everything that they can lay their hands on. and personally i don't think putting down ISOC, who can be a strong and worthy ally in certain battles, is the best policy. a. (still employed by the IGF secretariat for another few days, but speaking for myself as usual. oh yeah, i am also a supporting member of ISOC - not that i ever speak for them.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 1 06:51:01 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:21:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: References: <20080301110510.67C1EA6CB4@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <00d701c87b92$86df4540$949dcfc0$@net> Yes, this sarcasm aimed at ISOC is another fine example of foot shooting that I mentioned Parminder, if you want keep antagonizing people who are your best potential allies in this fight, go right ahead It is only going to give you a larger caliber weapon to do the foot shooting on CS / caucus statements next time around. suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:05 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > On 1 Mar 2008, at 12:04, Parminder wrote: > > > BTW, did you notice that in the present 'summary of MAG > > deliberations' while a useful topic of "Low cost sustainable > > access" is listed, the only possible specific topic under this which > > is listed is "the role of > > entrepreneurship in providing low cost sustainable access with a > > special focus on entrepreneurship and India's success." > > > that is _not_ the only possible topic, that is the only topic that > happens to be on the list at this point in time. I think there is > lots of opportunity for other possible topics to be added to this list. > > > > I will request CS MAG members to be as vigilant in pushing this kind > > of progressive agenda > > i believe they will be helped by lots of strong, focused proposals. > and as Adam says, the sooner the better. > > but please, everyone pay special attention to the opportunity to still > get in reports on the workshops that show the importance of these > topics and how/why they were interesting and vital to those who > participated. > > > in as the business sector and ISOC are in marketising development > > and Internet and everything that they can lay their hands on. > > and personally i don't think putting down ISOC, who can be a strong > and worthy ally in certain battles, is the best policy. > > a. > > > (still employed by the IGF secretariat for another few days, but > speaking for myself as usual. oh yeah, i am also a supporting member > of ISOC - not that i ever speak for them.) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 1 07:40:25 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:10:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080301124034.648DBE2BE5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Avri > that is _not_ the only possible topic, that is the only topic that > happens to be on the list at this point in time. I think there is > lots of opportunity for other possible topics to be added to this list. I did not say it was the only possible topic. I clearly said that we should now get actively engaged because there is still much scope to get the right topics in. Quoting myself "So, I can still see that some of the topics we want discussed can seem buried in the listed text.. I also understand that there is going to be a further process of fine-tuning of these topics - and we need to really be ready to influence that process in all ways that we can." I couldn't be clearer. But you also can't expect me to completely ignore the significance of the only one possible topic that is already listed there. And that in the context, as I described at length, of what happened in the run up to the last IGF. So, I am only trying to tell members here that we need to be vigilant and active. > i believe they will be helped by lots of strong, focused proposals. > and as Adam says, the sooner the better. > Will surely give. That's what I am trying to make the context and state the urgency and important of. > and personally i don't think putting down ISOC, who can be a strong > and worthy ally in certain battles, is the best policy. I am willing to and do work with the business sector as well in areas they are allies, and there are significant such areas. This doesn't change my views on their policies in the areas I don't agree with them on. And I do let them know what I think of those polices, as well. Same stance towards ISOC... And I very much respect the technical standards work they do through support to IETF, and other Internet infrastructural development work they do. BTW, I know many here keep forgetting this, but for us quite often developing country governments are key allies on development and public domain kind of issues. But, at the same time, we keep telling governments what we think of them in other areas/ aspects. My comment about marketisation of development (and also the Internet) comes from studying their IGF contributions and interventions as well as other policy document. I havent seen much difference in their policy positions vis a vis business sector in these areas. I don't think business sector will mind my saying this about them - that they are for marketisation of development, Internet plus all/ most other sectors. Why should then ISOC be offended, if that really is their policy stance. Belief in markets, and in marketisaiton, of a sector is not inherently bad. Is it? Why is my statement of what I understand is their policy stance therefore be taken as 'putting them down'. I will be happy to be told by ISOC, or any of their defenders here, that market is the not the principal, mostly the exclusive, solution for the 'development problem' in ISOC's mind and policy stance. For if it is really so, that opens up good ground for us to discuss this issue further. And I am keen to do this discussion. IGF is a good space for that. I don't understand this high sensitiveness of what may be said and what cant about institutions in CS spaces. In development related public discussions we often openly berate say World Bank's policies on certain matters. No one comes down hushing us...In fact, after that we get invited to WB workshops, and even may work with them on some stuff. Apart from stating what I think is ISOC's policy stance, if there was some looseness in my comment, I am sorry for that. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:05 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > On 1 Mar 2008, at 12:04, Parminder wrote: > > > BTW, did you notice that in the present 'summary of MAG > > deliberations' while a useful topic of "Low cost sustainable > > access" is listed, the only possible specific topic under this which > > is listed is "the role of > > entrepreneurship in providing low cost sustainable access with a > > special focus on entrepreneurship and India's success." > > > that is _not_ the only possible topic, that is the only topic that > happens to be on the list at this point in time. I think there is > lots of opportunity for other possible topics to be added to this list. > > > > I will request CS MAG members to be as vigilant in pushing this kind > > of progressive agenda > > i believe they will be helped by lots of strong, focused proposals. > and as Adam says, the sooner the better. > > but please, everyone pay special attention to the opportunity to still > get in reports on the workshops that show the importance of these > topics and how/why they were interesting and vital to those who > participated. > > > in as the business sector and ISOC are in marketising development > > and Internet and everything that they can lay their hands on. > > and personally i don't think putting down ISOC, who can be a strong > and worthy ally in certain battles, is the best policy. > > a. > > > (still employed by the IGF secretariat for another few days, but > speaking for myself as usual. oh yeah, i am also a supporting member > of ISOC - not that i ever speak for them.) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Mar 1 07:53:55 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:53:55 +0100 Subject: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> <02C20A9F-E414-4778-917D-E18032098AA3@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A72@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Who are the four Russian Special Advsier? Are there any? wolfgang ________________________________ Lähettäjä: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Lähetetty: la 1.3.2008 2:07 Vastaanottaja: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Aihe: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who were in Geneva think about this. Thanks, Robin On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: The most telling point here appears to be >However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members >proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained. Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really multistakeholder? Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info ________________________________ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Openstds at ipjustice.org; ill-of-rights at ipjustice.org ; privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report. Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008 12:14 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 08:18 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 1 08:23:36 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:23:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080301091531.B2395A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080301091531.B2395A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Parminder wrote: > > McTim > > > > It's a solution to a number of problems/issues with IPv4. > > > > Solving these problems required a different packet design. This meant > > that a v6 packet would not be able to be read by a v4 host natively > > (and vice versa). > > > Well, that the answer to my question. So, you do say that, within plausible > limits, there was no possible design for a v6 packet that could do all it > does now and still be read by v4 host and vice versa. Fine. > > Though there is a connected issue (which was also my question) that if we > had kept this condition - that v6 packet JUST SHOULD BE ABLE to be read by > v4 host and vice versa - as an important, and lets say for argument's sake, > an incontrovertible condition, what all functionality of a v6 system will be > lost to us. If I understand you correctly, and you make the packet headers the same (compatible) then you lose pretty much everything. Address translation is trivial, so as Suresh said, this is a non-issue. If we knew this, then we can seek to do a political trade off > between the seamless-compatibility objective and these other objectives > which were simply not possible if we insisted on seamless compatibility. > Well that trade off was done years ago. Seamless compatibility was NEVER an objective! > I am sure this above formulation is no more complex than all the technical > specification formulations that you forward to me and I read them all, and > am not complaining :). > > When you say > > >> > > >> Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or > impossible? > > >You will have to read the history (IETF list archives). > > And also > > > >> > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of > > > non-compatibility, > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > >Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later renamed > >IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were made. > > > You are pointing to me to the IETFs history docs on the crucial aspect of my > questions. But do we, (and you) as someone interested in tech governance > have no views at all on whether the v6 transition problem we are faced with, > which by all estimates is huge, could have been avoided by an alternative > design. Can we afford to not give any thought to this, and not have any view > on this.... Did you never think of investigating, and forming a view on > this. > I do have a view, it's this: The "problem" is not huge, it'll be worked out in short order (5 to 10 years). There are many transition mechanisms folk can employ, and have done. The tools are there, it's just that folk aren't deploying them at the speed that was anticipated. I have no interest in re-fighting protocol wars that have already been fought. > > The swarm wisdom of the IETF > > produced IPv6 long ago. The spec is done, the WG is closed. Their is > > an installed base, it can't/won't be changed. > > > That's not a sufficient response. We may not be able to change it. But we > need to understand under what conditions crucial decisions that impact all > of us are taken, and see how we can improve those conditions and processes. Then join the process that makes the decisions. > That's all what constitutes discussing IG, and thats what we are here on > this list doing, as I understand it. > > And about the 'IPng Criteria document [Kasten94]' that you have quoted, why > couldn't there be a specific criterion there that 'v6 packet should be able > to be read by v4 host and vice versa'.... it isn't there, any good reasons?? Because then you couldn't do many if not most of the other things listed! Let me make an analogous thought experiment and see if it helps you. Let's say that the predominate vehicle engine in the world is the internal combustion engine (the Internet). let's also say that most engines run on fossil fuels (IPv4). So when folks (IETF/IAB/IESG/RIRs/IANA/others) saw that we would run out of fuel some day, they tried conserving (CIDR), this worked quite well but it was not a permanent solution. They realised a longer term fuel solution was needed (128 bits of address space). They reckoned that if they were going to need a new kind of fuel, then maybe they could do a redesign of the engine (IP stack) at the same time, so it could, inter alia, use both older and newer cars/fuel during the transition. In addition, maybe this new engine could do things the old one couldn't, like fly your car into the air or go underwater or go into space someday, (i.e., IPv6 extensible packet headers). so after many years work in isolation (because very few others knew or cared that we would run out of fuel) they finalised the specs for the new engine and fuel (IPv6). So a few people started building the new engine into their vehicles, (Linux, Mac and Vista have it by default, XP has it but you have to manually turn it on), realising that they could use the old fuel, but had to use a mix of old and new at the same time in different combustion chambers (dual stack) OR tunnel the fuel line of one fuel thru the fuel line of the other (tunneling) OR convert the old fuel into the new and vice versa (NAT-PT). What's more, the new fuel is dirt cheap relative to the old, and seemingly infinite. w00t! A decade later some people are panicking because they don't understand that most modern vehicles can use both fuels if tweaked by a mechanic. There are usually no parts to buy, just some labor involved. Older vehicles can use the new fuel as well (NAT), but it may not work as well as the new fuel works on the newer engines (dual stack). So what you are asking is; "Why can't the old engine use the new fuel in it's original combustion chamber and why can't the new engine use the old fuel without converting it?" Because then it couldn't do the things the new engine can do, only the things the old one can do. and "Wasn't that a mistake by these so-called far sighted engineers?" The answer is clearly, no. and "We should second guess them because I don't understand what they have built, plus I suspect they want the best engine and fuel for themselves, and leave the rest of us to use the old engines and fuel, which is in short supply" which is net-kookery, really. > > And when they put done this criterion > > > * transition - the IPng transition plan is simple and realistically > > covers the transition methods that will be present in the > > marketplace > > > From what we know around us today, they obviously did not get it right. It is simple, you can, inter alia: dual stack (available in the marketplace today), Tunnel (available in the marketplace today) or do address/protocol translation (NAT-PT) (available in the marketplace today). > I can think of one possible reason why they did not put in a > seamless-compatibility criterion (not saying that was their reason, but just > exploring the possible reasons bec I think we need to understand the > circumstance under which such an imp decision was taken). It could be that > if two protocols were perfectly compatible, there would not be enough > incentive among most users to shift to the new protocol. It will create two > layers of the Internet - those who can enjoy all the functionalities of the > much more superior v6 protocol and those who are struck with v4. Well, that > at its face would be a very good reason for IETF for doing what they did. I'm going to assume that your conspiracy theory was concocted in ignorance, and just let it go. > But this imperative needed to be discussed more widely, among circles > outside the IETF, and evaluated against the problems that a non-compatible > protocols based transition will cause and such....thats the kind of > tech-policy interface issue that, rightly, takes up most of our energies on > this list. > > So, while I thank you for all the links you have sent (you have been as > engaging and through as ever) and I will use google as well, but as my email > describes above, the issue is not about a set of facts which have a clear > answer out there. If there were some such clear answer, someone on this list > would have told me that. And I havent got that answer. Hopefully, the above should clear it up for you, if not, I can't help you. -- 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 Sat Mar 1 08:44:07 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:44:07 +0100 Subject: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A77@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Adam:. Five regions, and within those five regions four reps cover the traditional UN sub-groups, 5x4 = 20. We were told 20 govt was the basic minimum acceptable for govt to be able to advise the UN SG (advising the SG being the purpose of the MAG and the SG being the UN...) Wolfgang: Where are the intgovernmental organisations (ITU, OECD, UNESCO, COE, OSCE, WIPO, WTO, ILO)? Obersvers? And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and academic community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 1 10:18:27 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100 Subject: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A77@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A77@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <352F28EC-DE31-4846-B5F1-C9A87E4A2D60@psg.com> On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and > academic community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not qualified for this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these closets: - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some other people, and thus consider myself CS - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write protocols, and do technical research and thus am TC - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent somehow) and hence am a small business person - PS I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may take it to extremes) note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can appoint CS, especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well by the gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for more people from development countries since they consider that those countries are the ones who really support CS. so _in addition_ to trying to place development CS people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise. 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 robin at ipjustice.org Sat Mar 1 11:03:13 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 08:03:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2027168E-10C5-473F-8960-8FA7F6F21DE7@ipjustice.org> The four Russians advisors were listed on the MAG mtg attendance list that was sent to MAG via email. I have no idea what role they really play in the mix, however. Glad to hear that some flags of concern were raised in the room at the time. Robin On Mar 1, 2008, at 2:05 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On MAG composition, Parminder¹s ³Not that things would have >> changed if we had said so² seems like an understatement. >> Obviously there are pressures being brought to bear offline that >> significantly trump anything we might say, so stomping our feet >> rather than Œpussyfooting¹ by specifying exactly how many bodies >> from which groups we think there should be probably would have >> just been picking losing fights. Saying CS is underrepresented >> was adequate for our main concern and obviously, rectifying it >> would mean taking from overrepresented groups. That said, ³While >> not perfect, the balance of the current MAG was felt to be >> reasonable.² So voila. >> >> Robin says there are four Russian govt advisors. > > > They weren't really "advisers", just people in the room. They had > no special status, they did not speak (as chairs advisers are > allowed to do.) > > And it was challenged. But it is very difficult to tell govt to > get out, particularly difficult when the country is a permanent > member of the security council. > > From now on MAG meetings will take a rollcall of people in the > room, I hope the rollcall will be made public. This situation > probably won't happen again. > > Thinks it's now under control... > > Adam > > > >> Not being on MAG, I don¹t know where she¹s seeing this, would >> appreciate clarification. The list on the website still shows the >> Brazilian contingent. >> >> Let me raise a different issue: the program. I thought it a bit >> odd at the consultation when Nitin switched agenda items 3 and 4 >> around, so that we spent a big chunk of time after lunch hearing >> ³reports from related activities² before finally getting around, >> with just one hour left, to what I¹d have thought should be the >> main focus of a consultation, ³The 2008 Meeting.² After the >> Indian presentation of the conference site there was not much time >> left, people were tired, and many had gone when it was finally the >> moment to talk about what stakeholders might like to see in the >> main sessions. In this environment, we introduced the caucus¹ >> four proposals, APC, Switzerland, Brazil offered theirs, there >> were a few shorter comments, and then we were out of time. There >> was no possibility for serious follow on discussion concerning any >> of the proposals (although Brazil, Switzerland, and APC did >> indicate support for the Development Agenda concept). >> >> Now looking at the MAG summary, I see no connection between our >> proposals and the two schedules under consideration. Certainly >> the words enhanced cooperation, net neutrality, development >> agenda, and transparency/inclusion do not appear. In contrast, >> ³the next billion² and ³managing² (not governing, per ISOC circa >> 2003) the net are on both. So voila. Interesting process. >> >> Hopefully the packed schedules of main sessions will also >> accommodate a fairly unrestricted number of workshops, as these >> would seem the only option to pursue any of our proposals. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On 3/1/08 8:25 AM, "Parminder" wrote: >> >> Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are >> over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was >> advice on the list against saying soŠ which later extended to that >> we should not say anything about any other group¹s representation >> and just say CS is under-represented. >> >> Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is >> important for CS to be upfront and say these things when the >> occasion arises and not pussyfoot as we often tend to do. >> >> We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily >> climbing though many different means, and this is a cause of >> concern etcŠLet them not do anything about this, but let them know >> that¹s what we thinkŠ.. >> >> Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in >> the MAG. >> >> The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent >> gov representation it says >> ³However, the group was informed that the current balance in the >> MAG, of 50% of its members proposed by governments and 50% by >> other stakeholder groups, would be maintained.² >> Note the part Œthe group was informed¹Š what does that mean!! Who >> informed the group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what >> the group itself seem to have deliberated and decidedŠ but this is >> about something the group having been told Š BY WHOM >> >> Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? >> >> Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should >> stay as purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive >> identity / authority of its own, would note that we can keep >> expecting more and more of these diktats from unknown quarters, >> which none of us can ever even reach out to, much less influenceŠ >> Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin Desai, who as SG¹s >> Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence on SG¹s >> decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in >> guard. In any case there are many others who have great influence >> with SG¹s office and that is showingŠ. >> >> In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major >> opportunity. Now it may be too late to even call for it. >> >> An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all >> the energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a >> few times that there is no insistence on the name Œbureau¹ and >> whatever goes with itŠ So now you have your MAG which is >> government loaded because we ourselves colluded in handing over >> all powers to the UN SG officeŠ No point ruing it. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Robin Gross [> >mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available >> >> >> This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special >> advisors" are added into the mix, there is an even higher >> percentage of govt representation. For example there are 4 >> representatives from the Russian govt listed as special advisors. >> I'm not sure why a non-host country would need such >> disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go >> to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good >> sense as to whether such a high percentage of govt representation >> of the MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. I'd be >> curious to hear what the MAG members who were in Geneva think >> about this. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> The most telling point here appears to be >>> However, the group was informed that the current balance in the >>> MAG, of 50% of its members >>> proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, >>> would be maintained. >> Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really >> multistakeholder? >> >> Ian Peter >> >> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >> >> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> www.internetmark2.org >> >> www.nethistory.info >> >> >> From: Robin Gross [> >mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >> Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; >> Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org; privacy- >> coalition at lists.apc.org >> Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available >> >> Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in >> Geneva this week is on the IGF website: >> >> > 28.02.2008.v1.pdf>http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/ >> MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf >> >> Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the >> report. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 1 12:04:51 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 22:34:51 +0530 Subject: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <352F28EC-DE31-4846-B5F1-C9A87E4A2D60@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080301170504.CE6C36782B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Avri > > - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some > other people, and thus consider myself CS > - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC > - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write > protocols, and do technical research and thus am TC > - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent > somehow) and hence am a small business person - PS > > I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may > take it to extremes) > are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? The problem is not as big as you may be making it out to be. These, IGC, MAG, IGF, WSIS etc are public policy for a. So what counts is our one chosen political identity, and not all the roles we may play... So it is the political-identity hat one puts that matters - and yes, that has to be one. Being a part of the university and AC. Who ever said that was any problem. Milton or Jeanette never thought it was a problem for their CS identity. Half of the most aggressive CS constituency in India are those who teach in Uuniversities. Participating in the IETF - by all means. IETF is basically a tech-expertise heavy standards body - -and as long as they are not representing a clear policy position - and you are not tied to it in any way - you can do all the IETF work. Many CS persons and academicians work on many gov technical committees, and do not disown their CS identity as the primary political identity. Appointee at ICANN - this issue needs to be debated. How closely associated with the power/ policy structure. How independently of the ICANN official policy stances one can speak - not only speak but present viewpoints, commit oneself to them, campaign for them etc. Doing tech work - where is the problem. Doing consultancy - many CS persons do. But they keep their primary political identity distinct. And if there is a clear conflict of interest, just opt out of that particular CS activity etc... ( So, Avri, whether you are CS has to do with what you think is your primary politics. What do you think is your primary political identity, that you are completely and exclusively ready to express and commit to in public fora. Is it that difficult a thing to decide on? If it gets difficult only on some points, those exceptions can be made, by duly stating them and excusing oneself (as you did about signing the 'keep the core neutral campaign'). But these exceptions should only be very few, and one must not at ones heart be conflicted about ones primary political identity. That’s the main point. And we speak of need for some degree of clarity of primary political identity, because we as social actors should be able work more purposefully if we knew the politics and the primary political identity of those whom we work with. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:48 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and > > academic community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? > > are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? > > due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not > qualified for this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each > of these closets: > > - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some > other people, and thus consider myself CS > - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC > - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write > protocols, and do technical research and thus am TC > - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent > somehow) and hence am a small business person - PS > > I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may > take it to extremes) > > note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can > appoint CS, especially in those countries where CS considers itself > served well by the gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for > more people from development countries since they consider that those > countries are the ones who really support CS. so _in addition_ to > trying to place development CS people through the other category, i > suggest that CS from developing countries get their gov'ts to live up > to the promise. > > 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 Sat Mar 1 12:27:26 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 22:57:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080301172737.E6CBE67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> McTim So you are saying that full compatibility was not possible with all the features we have and we wanted. That is why it was never an objective. Fine. We can close this dialogue if you are so eager to. But please read my emails without eagerness to jump to conclusions. I never said IETF ever made any conspiracy to keep good part of the Internet for themselves and leave bad part to others. > "We should second guess them because I don't understand what they have > built, plus I suspect they want the best engine and fuel for > themselves, and leave the rest of us to use the old engines and fuel, > which is in short supply" > > which is net-kookery, really. I said exactly the opposite. I said that one reason why IETF did not make ipv6 so much backward compatible could be - and here I was proposing an mutual exploration of their possible reasons in a very positive way - that they were worried that if they did so, there would not be enough incentive for all parts of the Internet to shift to ip6 and THAT WOULD lead to two level Internet - and THEY DID NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. Entirely attributing the very best motives to them. Pl read below. > > I can think of one possible reason why they did not put in a > > seamless-compatibility criterion (not saying that was their reason, but > just > > exploring the possible reasons bec I think we need to understand the > > circumstance under which such an imp decision was taken). It could be > that > > if two protocols were perfectly compatible, there would not be enough > > incentive among most users to shift to the new protocol. It will create > two > > layers of the Internet - those who can enjoy all the functionalities of > the > > much more superior v6 protocol and those who are struck with v4. Well, > that > > at its face would be a very good reason for IETF for doing what they > did. So your comments attributing a conspiracy theory to me are quite uncalled for. > > I'm going to assume that your conspiracy theory was concocted in > ignorance, and just let it go. Anyways, thanks for all the explanations. BTW the view you say you have on the problems of ip6 transition that " The "problem" is not huge, it'll be > worked out in short order (5 to 10 years)" is not shared by many others who are quite knowledgeable. And many of them are quite worried about how it will work out. This was and is the only reason for my interest in this issue, and I must tell you I am not completely reassured by your statement. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:54 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > McTim > > > > > > > It's a solution to a number of problems/issues with IPv4. > > > > > > Solving these problems required a different packet design. This meant > > > that a v6 packet would not be able to be read by a v4 host natively > > > (and vice versa). > > > > > > Well, that the answer to my question. So, you do say that, within > plausible > > limits, there was no possible design for a v6 packet that could do all > it > > does now and still be read by v4 host and vice versa. Fine. > > > > Though there is a connected issue (which was also my question) that if > we > > had kept this condition - that v6 packet JUST SHOULD BE ABLE to be read > by > > v4 host and vice versa - as an important, and lets say for argument's > sake, > > an incontrovertible condition, what all functionality of a v6 system > will be > > lost to us. > > If I understand you correctly, and you make the packet headers the > same (compatible) then you lose pretty much everything. > > Address translation is trivial, so as Suresh said, this is a non-issue. > > If we knew this, then we can seek to do a political trade off > > between the seamless-compatibility objective and these other objectives > > which were simply not possible if we insisted on seamless > compatibility. > > > > Well that trade off was done years ago. Seamless compatibility was > NEVER an objective! > > > I am sure this above formulation is no more complex than all the > technical > > specification formulations that you forward to me and I read them all, > and > > am not complaining :). > > > > When you say > > > > >> > > > > >> Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or > > impossible? > > > > >You will have to read the history (IETF list archives). > > > > And also > > > > > > >> > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of > > > > non-compatibility, > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > > > >Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later > renamed > > >IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were made. > > > > > > You are pointing to me to the IETFs history docs on the crucial aspect > of my > > questions. But do we, (and you) as someone interested in tech > governance > > have no views at all on whether the v6 transition problem we are faced > with, > > which by all estimates is huge, could have been avoided by an > alternative > > design. Can we afford to not give any thought to this, and not have any > view > > on this.... Did you never think of investigating, and forming a view on > > this. > > > > I do have a view, it's this: The "problem" is not huge, it'll be > worked out in short order (5 to 10 years). There are many transition > mechanisms folk can employ, and have done. The tools are there, it's > just that folk aren't deploying them at the speed that was > anticipated. I have no interest in re-fighting protocol wars that > have already been fought. > > > > > The swarm wisdom of the IETF > > > produced IPv6 long ago. The spec is done, the WG is closed. Their > is > > > an installed base, it can't/won't be changed. > > > > > > That's not a sufficient response. We may not be able to change it. But > we > > need to understand under what conditions crucial decisions that impact > all > > of us are taken, and see how we can improve those conditions and > processes. > > Then join the process that makes the decisions. > > > That's all what constitutes discussing IG, and thats what we are here > on > > this list doing, as I understand it. > > > > And about the 'IPng Criteria document [Kasten94]' that you have quoted, > why > > couldn't there be a specific criterion there that 'v6 packet should be > able > > to be read by v4 host and vice versa'.... it isn't there, any good > reasons?? > > Because then you couldn't do many if not most of the other things listed! > > Let me make an analogous thought experiment and see if it helps you. > > Let's say that the predominate vehicle engine in the world is the > internal combustion engine (the Internet). let's also say that most > engines run on fossil fuels (IPv4). So when folks > (IETF/IAB/IESG/RIRs/IANA/others) saw that we would run out of fuel > some day, they tried conserving (CIDR), this worked quite well but it > was not a permanent solution. They realised a longer term fuel > solution was needed (128 bits of address space). > > They reckoned that if they were going to need a new kind of fuel, then > maybe they could do a redesign of the engine (IP stack) at the same > time, so it could, inter alia, use both older and newer cars/fuel > during the transition. In addition, maybe this new engine could do > things the old one couldn't, like fly your car into the air or go > underwater or go into space someday, (i.e., IPv6 extensible packet > headers). so after many years work in isolation (because very few > others knew or cared that we would run out of fuel) they finalised the > specs for the new engine and fuel (IPv6). > > So a few people started building the new engine into their vehicles, > (Linux, Mac and Vista have it by default, XP has it but you have to > manually turn it on), realising that they could use the old fuel, but > had to use a mix of old and new at the same time in different > combustion chambers (dual stack) OR tunnel the fuel line of one fuel > thru the fuel line of the other (tunneling) OR convert the old fuel > into the new and vice versa (NAT-PT). > > What's more, the new fuel is dirt cheap relative to the old, and > seemingly infinite. w00t! > > A decade later some people are panicking because they don't understand > that most modern vehicles can use both fuels if tweaked by a mechanic. > There are usually no parts to buy, just some labor involved. Older > vehicles can use the new fuel as well (NAT), but it may not work as > well as the new fuel works on the newer engines (dual stack). > > So what you are asking is; > > "Why can't the old engine use the new fuel in it's original combustion > chamber and why can't the new engine use the old fuel without > converting it?" > > Because then it couldn't do the things the new engine can do, only the > things the old one can do. > > and > > "Wasn't that a mistake by these so-called far sighted engineers?" > > The answer is clearly, no. > > and > > "We should second guess them because I don't understand what they have > built, plus I suspect they want the best engine and fuel for > themselves, and leave the rest of us to use the old engines and fuel, > which is in short supply" > > which is net-kookery, really. > > > > > And when they put done this criterion > > > > > * transition - the IPng transition plan is simple and realistically > > > covers the transition methods that will be present in the > > > marketplace > > > > > > From what we know around us today, they obviously did not get it right. > > It is simple, you can, inter alia: dual stack (available in the > marketplace today), Tunnel (available in the marketplace today) or do > address/protocol translation (NAT-PT) (available in the marketplace > today). > > > > I can think of one possible reason why they did not put in a > > seamless-compatibility criterion (not saying that was their reason, but > just > > exploring the possible reasons bec I think we need to understand the > > circumstance under which such an imp decision was taken). It could be > that > > if two protocols were perfectly compatible, there would not be enough > > incentive among most users to shift to the new protocol. It will create > two > > layers of the Internet - those who can enjoy all the functionalities of > the > > much more superior v6 protocol and those who are struck with v4. Well, > that > > at its face would be a very good reason for IETF for doing what they > did. > > I'm going to assume that your conspiracy theory was concocted in > ignorance, and just let it go. > > > > But this imperative needed to be discussed more widely, among circles > > outside the IETF, and evaluated against the problems that a non- > compatible > > protocols based transition will cause and such....thats the kind of > > tech-policy interface issue that, rightly, takes up most of our > energies on > > this list. > > > > So, while I thank you for all the links you have sent (you have been as > > engaging and through as ever) and I will use google as well, but as my > email > > describes above, the issue is not about a set of facts which have a > clear > > answer out there. If there were some such clear answer, someone on this > list > > would have told me that. And I havent got that answer. > > Hopefully, the above should clear it up for you, if not, I can't help you. > > -- > 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 Sat Mar 1 14:12:36 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 22:12:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080301172737.E6CBE67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080301172737.E6CBE67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > I said exactly the opposite. I said that one reason why IETF did not make > ipv6 so much backward compatible could be - and here I was proposing an > mutual exploration of their possible reasons in a very positive way - that > they were worried that if they did so, there would not be enough incentive > for all parts of the Internet to shift to ip6 and THAT WOULD lead to two > level Internet - and THEY DID NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. Entirely attributing > the very best motives to them. Pl read below. I see now. How could I have missed that? A standards setting body writing a non-backwards compatible spec in the fear that a compatible one might not be fully utilised? Silly me, should have been obvious. As an apologia pro vita sua, I offer some "Haiku of the thread", and will commit to use only the haiku form in further communications on this issue, as both a penance and a finger/time saver. Who knows, we might be able to understand each other via poetry, as we certainly aren't communicating via prose. how close to Icann. two layers. superior. stuck with v4. Well. rigging agenda. No prizes for guessing who the best policy. North. South. Divided. This needs to be debated. Reconstituting. It was a mistake. And I havent got that answer. all too flemingesque. -- 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 Sat Mar 1 17:37:18 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:37:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For me, a central part of the top level domain conversation is how many might there be. If there is to be a limit, .org, .com, ., ... then there's a discussion to have about where cities and which cities fit. If the number is to be very large, it's a different discussion, and I guess up to the lobbyist and purchaser. I find the current small number of top domains useful when I access a web site so that I have a bit of sense of where I am, who is the sponsor, ... Is that useful to others? How do many or few top level domains serve the individual user? 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 peter at peter-dambier.de Sat Mar 1 19:03:58 2008 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:03:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47C9EEEE.7010303@peter-dambier.de> No, for me, as an individual there cannot be enough. Today the ccTLD's are useless. People have to move worldwide wherever they can get a job. Many countrys have restrictions. You have to live there ... So only com, net, org are the primay TLDs of interest. That is only 3. That is not enough. Ok, to me mobil and aero do not make a lot of sense. Try get an aero domain - even when you travel a lot. biz? no, I am not a company and I dont understand what name is good for. Being somewhat overweight tripple x would have made sense but I guess that chance is gone. *cynism* On the other hand you are right. Forget everything but com. Now you have got 80% that should be good enough. Tell your browser to automatically add .com and everybody can have his own TLD. If only DNS was not designed as a tree. */cynism* Kind regards Peter Sylvia Caras wrote: > For me, a central part of the top level domain conversation is how > many might there be. If there is to be a limit, .org, .com, ., > ... then there's a discussion to have about where cities and which > cities fit. If the number is to be very large, it's a different > discussion, and I guess up to the lobbyist and purchaser. > > I find the current small number of top domains useful when I access a > web site so that I have a bit of sense of where I am, who is the > sponsor, ... Is that useful to others? > > How do many or few top level domains serve the individual user? > > 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 -- 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://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sat Mar 1 20:57:03 2008 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 01:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <352F28EC-DE31-4846-B5F1-C9A87E4A2D60@psg.com> References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A77@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <352F28EC-DE31-4846-B5F1-C9A87E4A2D60@psg.com> Message-ID: Avri, thanks again for pointing to the absurdity of the sectarian, pigeon-holing approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill approached by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try to coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, divide, divide" approach. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Avri Doria wrote: > Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100 > From: Avri Doria > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and academic >> community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? > > are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? > > due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not qualified for > this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these closets: > > - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some other > people, and thus consider myself CS > - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC > - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write protocols, and > do technical research and thus am TC > - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent somehow) > and hence am a small business person - PS > > I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may take it to > extremes) > > note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can appoint CS, > especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well by the > gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for more people from > development countries since they consider that those countries are the ones > who really support CS. so _in addition_ to trying to place development CS > people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing > countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise. > > 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 Sat Mar 1 22:05:16 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 08:35:16 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A77@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <352F28EC-DE31-4846-B5F1-C9A87E4A2D60@psg.com> Message-ID: <001c01c87c12$3f61aac0$be250040$@net> Especially when a few people seem concerned with chopping down the bridges as fast as others work hard to build them - some due to naïvete (Parminder, that's you, sorry), some due to petty, poisonous political baggage (Milton of course, who else).. God help civil society - or at least the subset of itself that's out here on this list.. you pick your representatives like this, you overreach yourself in the pursuit of goals that are neither attainable or even a good idea if you'd bother to think deeply, you wear a giant set of blinkers labeled ICANN control, and you then get what's coming to you. Defeat. Listen to Bill Drake, Adam, Avri and a few others on the list. They (especially Adam) seem to have kind of saved MAG for you and that's quite a feat given all this bungling in the background. Ideally BEFORE you send in any workshop requests. You let the IGP load workshop content onto the Hyderabad agenda and you wont like what the result is. Yes, some [or a lot of] this email is ad hominem but I am a bit past the stage of caring. suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:27 AM > To: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria > Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > Avri, > > thanks again for pointing to the absurdity of the sectarian, pigeon- > holing > approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill > approached > by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try > to > coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few > others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, > divide, divide" approach. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . > > > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100 > > From: Avri Doria > > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > > On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > >> And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and > academic > >> community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? > > > > are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? > > > > due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not > qualified for > > this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these > closets: > > > > - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some > other > > people, and thus consider myself CS > > - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC > > - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write > protocols, and > > do technical research and thus am TC > > - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent > somehow) > > and hence am a small business person - PS > > > > I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may > take it to > > extremes) > > > > note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can > appoint CS, > > especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well > by the > > gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for more people from > > development countries since they consider that those countries are > the ones > > who really support CS. so _in addition_ to trying to place > development CS > > people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing > > countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise. > > > > 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 ca at rits.org.br Sat Mar 1 22:42:30 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:42:30 -0300 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <001c01c87c12$3f61aac0$be250040$@net> References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A77@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <352F28EC-DE31-4846-B5F1-C9A87E4A2D60@psg.com> <001c01c87c12$3f61aac0$be250040$@net> Message-ID: <47CA2226.70402@rits.org.br> Suresh, sorry to say this, but you sound like a religious shrink who claims only God is the salvation for this unfaithful and reckless civil society, mentally helpless in the hands of implacable demons like MM and his satanic followers. Should we follow the brotherhood of Drake, Peake & Doria, then? Religiosity aside, I would be comfortable with it :) frt rgds --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Especially when a few people seem concerned with chopping down the bridges > as fast as others work hard to build them - some due to naïvete (Parminder, > that's you, sorry), some due to petty, poisonous political baggage (Milton > of course, who else).. > > God help civil society - or at least the subset of itself that's out here on > this list.. you pick your representatives like this, you overreach yourself > in the pursuit of goals that are neither attainable or even a good idea if > you'd bother to think deeply, you wear a giant set of blinkers labeled ICANN > control, and you then get what's coming to you. Defeat. > > Listen to Bill Drake, Adam, Avri and a few others on the list. They > (especially Adam) seem to have kind of saved MAG for you and that's quite a > feat given all this bungling in the background. Ideally BEFORE you send in > any workshop requests. You let the IGP load workshop content onto the > Hyderabad agenda and you wont like what the result is. > > Yes, some [or a lot of] this email is ad hominem but I am a bit past the > stage of caring. > > suresh > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:27 AM >> To: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria >> Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG >> available >> >> Avri, >> >> thanks again for pointing to the absurdity of the sectarian, pigeon- >> holing >> approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill >> approached >> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try >> to >> coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few >> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, >> divide, divide" approach. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> . . >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org >> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> . . >> >> >> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100 >>> From: Avri Doria >>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria >>> To: Governance Caucus >>> Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available >>> >>> >>> On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and >> academic >>>> community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? >>> are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? >>> >>> due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not >> qualified for >>> this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these >> closets: >>> - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some >> other >>> people, and thus consider myself CS >>> - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC >>> - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write >> protocols, and >>> do technical research and thus am TC >>> - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent >> somehow) >>> and hence am a small business person - PS >>> >>> I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may >> take it to >>> extremes) >>> >>> note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can >> appoint CS, >>> especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well >> by the >>> gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for more people from >>> development countries since they consider that those countries are >> the ones >>> who really support CS. so _in addition_ to trying to place >> development CS >>> people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing >>> countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise. >>> >>> 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 1 23:01:46 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 20:01:46 -0800 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <47CA2226.70402@rits.org.br> References: <4e3401c87b13$2feb1630$8b00a8c0@IAN> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A77@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <352F28EC-DE31-4846-B5F1-C9A87E4A2D60@psg.com> <001c01c87c12$3f61aac0$be250040$@net> <47CA2226.70402@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080302040146.GA26604@hserus.net> Carlos Afonso [02/03/08 00:42 -0300]: > Suresh, sorry to say this, but you sound like a religious shrink who claims > only God is the salvation for this unfaithful and reckless civil society, > mentally helpless in the hands of implacable demons like MM and his satanic > followers. Should we follow the brotherhood of Drake, Peake & Doria, then? > Religiosity aside, I would be comfortable with it :) Call me the voice in the wilderness. Or at least, someone pointing out something very basic, very obvious, that mere politeness seems to stop people from pointing out. > Should we follow the brotherhood of Drake, Peake & Doria, then? > Religiosity aside, I would be comfortable with it :) If that's a new church, sign me up for it. Amen. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 2 01:13:11 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:43:11 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080302061335.1B9D0E2BF3@smtp3.electricembers.net> Alex > approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill approached > by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try to > coordinate. Globalization, in its various shades of meaning, is also a grand collaboration, as the Internet is. But this doesn’t stop a high degree of politicization of that subject. No one comes in and says - don’t be divisive, pull yourselves together, be one voice and such. Global civil society has its highest degree of organization and mobilization with respect to the globalization issue. And it has found it necessary to develop some broad range of CS political positions - though with enough contestations within it - to distinguish itself from the business and government sectors. I don’t know where their advocacy would be if they had not done this. Building bridges comes in after such self-definition, and CS involved with globalization issues does work with these other sectors as required. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few > others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, > divide, divide" approach. Any advocacy group, as any action oriented group/ organization cannot do without certain amount of developing broad overall positions and orientations. The issue of 'bridges' comes in, as I said, after a group has so defined itself and not before, which will make it impossible to define itself, and what it intends to do, even within relatively broad boundaries. ICANN has its policy statements, ISOC has them, why shouldn’t IGC have them. Any reasons? The problem is that some of us take IGC only as an e-discussion list where we can contribute some information, pick up some and occasionally debate issues. Others, and I taken them to be those who signed its charter (plus some others who may want to), consider it also as a important advocacy and action platform. And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious that some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. And also to have a set of broad common political positions. In fact at the time the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying basic policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. So, there is no dividing going on here, only efforts to orient ourselves to more effective action in pursuit of our beliefs. So, only those who are either not interested in a certain broad set of beliefs that unite us (or should unite us), or in IGC doing effective advocacy and 'action', may feel that such efforts are attempts to divide, rather than organizing to act. BTW, I must clarify that IGC considers itself only as one of the CS groups, and not THE IG CS. Such an appropriation and monopolization is anathema in CS space. So, one doesn’t cease to be CS in IGC's eyes for not associating with IGC. For instance I do consider ISOC as a midway organization between a CS body and an industry forum. So they do have some claim to CS-hood. And there are certainly many other CS groups involved with IG issues, each with the right to self-define itself and associate itself with certain advocacy positions. One last clarification of self-definition as per our charter. IGC does try also to be an umbrella group for a variety of CS inputs into IG policy forums, and in this task try a rather broader self-definition (within CS parameters) rather than a narrower one which some other groups may prefer. But this breadth of orientation cannot be so loose that it makes it completely ineffective in its advocacy function. This balance has to continuously negotiated among us. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:27 AM > To: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria > Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > Avri, > > thanks again for pointing to the absurdity of the sectarian, pigeon-holing > approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill approached > by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try to > coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few > others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, > divide, divide" approach. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100 > > From: Avri Doria > > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > > On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > >> And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and > academic > >> community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? > > > > are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? > > > > due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not qualified > for > > this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these > closets: > > > > - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some > other > > people, and thus consider myself CS > > - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC > > - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write protocols, > and > > do technical research and thus am TC > > - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent > somehow) > > and hence am a small business person - PS > > > > I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may take > it to > > extremes) > > > > note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can appoint > CS, > > especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well by > the > > gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for more people from > > development countries since they consider that those countries are the > ones > > who really support CS. so _in addition_ to trying to place development > CS > > people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing > > countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise. > > > > 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Sun Mar 2 01:19:27 2008 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 06:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <5fmg5b$83vkpo@mail.servidor.unam.mx> References: <5fmg5b$83vkpo@mail.servidor.unam.mx> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks for the rich supply of QED. Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:43:11 +0530 > From: Parminder > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Alejandro Pisanty' , > 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: "bridge", > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > Alex > >> approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill approached >> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try to >> coordinate. > > Globalization, in its various shades of meaning, is also a grand > collaboration, as the Internet is. But this doesn’t stop a high degree of > politicization of that subject. No one comes in and says - don’t be > divisive, pull yourselves together, be one voice and such. Global civil > society has its highest degree of organization and mobilization with respect > to the globalization issue. And it has found it necessary to develop some > broad range of CS political positions - though with enough contestations > within it - to distinguish itself from the business and government sectors. > I don’t know where their advocacy would be if they had not done this. > Building bridges comes in after such self-definition, and CS involved with > globalization issues does work with these other sectors as required. > > Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few >> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, >> divide, divide" approach. > > Any advocacy group, as any action oriented group/ organization cannot do > without certain amount of developing broad overall positions and > orientations. The issue of 'bridges' comes in, as I said, after a group has > so defined itself and not before, which will make it impossible to define > itself, and what it intends to do, even within relatively broad boundaries. > > ICANN has its policy statements, ISOC has them, why shouldn’t IGC have them. > Any reasons? > > The problem is that some of us take IGC only as an e-discussion list where > we can contribute some information, pick up some and occasionally debate > issues. Others, and I taken them to be those who signed its charter (plus > some others who may want to), consider it also as a important advocacy and > action platform. > > And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious that > some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. And > also to have a set of broad common political positions. In fact at the time > the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying basic > policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > > So, there is no dividing going on here, only efforts to orient ourselves to > more effective action in pursuit of our beliefs. So, only those who are > either not interested in a certain broad set of beliefs that unite us (or > should unite us), or in IGC doing effective advocacy and 'action', may feel > that such efforts are attempts to divide, rather than organizing to act. > > BTW, I must clarify that IGC considers itself only as one of the CS groups, > and not THE IG CS. Such an appropriation and monopolization is anathema in > CS space. So, one doesn’t cease to be CS in IGC's eyes for not associating > with IGC. For instance I do consider ISOC as a midway organization between a > CS body and an industry forum. So they do have some claim to CS-hood. And > there are certainly many other CS groups involved with IG issues, each with > the right to self-define itself and associate itself with certain advocacy > positions. > > One last clarification of self-definition as per our charter. IGC does try > also to be an umbrella group for a variety of CS inputs into IG policy > forums, and in this task try a rather broader self-definition (within CS > parameters) rather than a narrower one which some other groups may prefer. > But this breadth of orientation cannot be so loose that it makes it > completely ineffective in its advocacy function. This balance has to > continuously negotiated among us. > > Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:27 AM >> To: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria >> Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG >> available >> >> Avri, >> >> thanks again for pointing to the absurdity of the sectarian, pigeon-holing >> approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill approached >> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try to >> coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few >> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, >> divide, divide" approach. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> . >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org >> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> . >> >> >> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100 >>> From: Avri Doria >>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria >>> To: Governance Caucus >>> Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available >>> >>> >>> On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and >> academic >>>> community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? >>> >>> are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? >>> >>> due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not qualified >> for >>> this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these >> closets: >>> >>> - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some >> other >>> people, and thus consider myself CS >>> - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC >>> - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write protocols, >> and >>> do technical research and thus am TC >>> - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent >> somehow) >>> and hence am a small business person - PS >>> >>> I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may take >> it to >>> extremes) >>> >>> note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can appoint >> CS, >>> especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well by >> the >>> gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for more people from >>> development countries since they consider that those countries are the >> ones >>> who really support CS. so _in addition_ to trying to place development >> CS >>> people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing >>> countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise. >>> >>> 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Mar 2 02:54:18 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:54:18 +0100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20080302040146.GA26604@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 3/2/08 5:01 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Carlos Afonso [02/03/08 00:42 -0300]: >> Suresh, sorry to say this, but you sound like a religious shrink who claims >> only God is the salvation for this unfaithful and reckless civil society, >> mentally helpless in the hands of implacable demons like MM and his satanic >> followers. Should we follow the brotherhood of Drake, Peake & Doria, then? >> Religiosity aside, I would be comfortable with it :) > > Call me the voice in the wilderness. Or at least, someone pointing out > something very basic, very obvious, that mere politeness seems to stop > people from pointing out. > >> Should we follow the brotherhood of Drake, Peake & Doria, then? >> Religiosity aside, I would be comfortable with it :) > > If that's a new church, sign me up for it. Amen. > > srs "Please accept my resignation. I don¹t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". --Groucho Marx ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 2 03:17:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:47:43 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080302081758.3C970A6C13@smtp2.electricembers.net> Alejandro > thanks for the rich supply of QED. My pleasure, anytime. BTW, it is entirely a matter of personal opinion whether your two liner is a QED >>The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill > approached >> >> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try >> to >> >> coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few >> >> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, >> >> divide, divide" approach. Or my rather more elaborately argued case, taking into consideration many apparent opposites as well. BTW I did not understand the meaning of your judgment of 'fruitlessness' of the activities of the 'latest weeks'. Any meaningful discussion will bring out different viewpoints. I thought the discussions and subsequent outputs, and their outcomes were quite fruitful. But if you disagree, will you pl advise us on what could have been the right strategy vis a vis the open consultations and our positions/ statements there. And of course there was ample time before these positions were made for you to state your advice, and get involved in the discussion. But I will still be interested. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:49 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > > Parminder, > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > > On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > > > Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:43:11 +0530 > > From: Parminder > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Alejandro Pisanty' > , > > 'Avri Doria' > > Subject: RE: "bridge", > > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > > > > Alex > > > >> approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill > approached > >> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try > to > >> coordinate. > > > > Globalization, in its various shades of meaning, is also a grand > > collaboration, as the Internet is. But this doesn’t stop a high degree > of > > politicization of that subject. No one comes in and says - don’t be > > divisive, pull yourselves together, be one voice and such. Global civil > > society has its highest degree of organization and mobilization with > respect > > to the globalization issue. And it has found it necessary to develop > some > > broad range of CS political positions - though with enough contestations > > within it - to distinguish itself from the business and government > sectors. > > I don’t know where their advocacy would be if they had not done this. > > Building bridges comes in after such self-definition, and CS involved > with > > globalization issues does work with these other sectors as required. > > > > Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few > >> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, > >> divide, divide" approach. > > > > Any advocacy group, as any action oriented group/ organization cannot do > > without certain amount of developing broad overall positions and > > orientations. The issue of 'bridges' comes in, as I said, after a group > has > > so defined itself and not before, which will make it impossible to > define > > itself, and what it intends to do, even within relatively broad > boundaries. > > > > ICANN has its policy statements, ISOC has them, why shouldn’t IGC have > them. > > Any reasons? > > > > The problem is that some of us take IGC only as an e-discussion list > where > > we can contribute some information, pick up some and occasionally debate > > issues. Others, and I taken them to be those who signed its charter > (plus > > some others who may want to), consider it also as a important advocacy > and > > action platform. > > > > And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious that > > some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. > And > > also to have a set of broad common political positions. In fact at the > time > > the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying basic > > policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > > > > So, there is no dividing going on here, only efforts to orient ourselves > to > > more effective action in pursuit of our beliefs. So, only those who are > > either not interested in a certain broad set of beliefs that unite us > (or > > should unite us), or in IGC doing effective advocacy and 'action', may > feel > > that such efforts are attempts to divide, rather than organizing to act. > > > > BTW, I must clarify that IGC considers itself only as one of the CS > groups, > > and not THE IG CS. Such an appropriation and monopolization is anathema > in > > CS space. So, one doesn’t cease to be CS in IGC's eyes for not > associating > > with IGC. For instance I do consider ISOC as a midway organization > between a > > CS body and an industry forum. So they do have some claim to CS-hood. > And > > there are certainly many other CS groups involved with IG issues, each > with > > the right to self-define itself and associate itself with certain > advocacy > > positions. > > > > One last clarification of self-definition as per our charter. IGC does > try > > also to be an umbrella group for a variety of CS inputs into IG policy > > forums, and in this task try a rather broader self-definition (within CS > > parameters) rather than a narrower one which some other groups may > prefer. > > But this breadth of orientation cannot be so loose that it makes it > > completely ineffective in its advocacy function. This balance has to > > continuously negotiated among us. > > > > Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:27 AM > >> To: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria > >> Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > >> available > >> > >> Avri, > >> > >> thanks again for pointing to the absurdity of the sectarian, pigeon- > holing > >> approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill > approached > >> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try > to > >> coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few > >> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide, > >> divide, divide" approach. > >> > >> Alejandro Pisanty > >> > >> > >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > >> . > >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > >> > >> *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > >> *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > >> *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > >> > >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > >> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > >> . > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >>> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100 > >>> From: Avri Doria > >>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria > >>> To: Governance Caucus > >>> Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > >>> > >>> > >>> On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >>> > >>>> And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and > >> academic > >>>> community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC? > >>> > >>> are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat? > >>> > >>> due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not > qualified > >> for > >>> this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these > >> closets: > >>> > >>> - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some > >> other > >>> people, and thus consider myself CS > >>> - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC > >>> - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write > protocols, > >> and > >>> do technical research and thus am TC > >>> - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent > >> somehow) > >>> and hence am a small business person - PS > >>> > >>> I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may > take > >> it to > >>> extremes) > >>> > >>> note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people. some can > appoint > >> CS, > >>> especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well by > >> the > >>> gov't. in fact this was part of the argument for more people from > >>> development countries since they consider that those countries are the > >> ones > >>> who really support CS. so _in addition_ to trying to place > development > >> CS > >>> people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing > >>> countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise. > >>> > >>> 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 avri at psg.com Sun Mar 2 03:50:00 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:50:00 +0100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: > > And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > that > some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those who require purity of belief and origin. > And > also to have a set of broad common political positions. In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the views put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me is the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions while acting in their individual capacities. > In fact at the time > the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying > basic > policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't is that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and of course members of the internet community and of academia and an even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to the UNSG's office.. I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group of people who they think can represent their views and who they think can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in another context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. 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 karl at cavebear.com Sun Mar 2 04:27:16 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:27:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CA72F4.6080608@cavebear.com> Sylvia Caras wrote: > For me, a central part of the top level domain conversation is how > many might there be. From a technical perspective the technical burden of serving a root zone to the net is equivalent serving a TLD zone. Today the .com zone runs with roughly 70,000,000 names. .com runs reliably and with an acceptable administrative error rate. Verisign has done a good technical job. The experience we have from .com tells us that it is technically feasible to run a root zone with 70,000,000 names both reliably and with an acceptable administrative error rate. If ICANN were to allow 50 new TLDs every business day - roughly 10,000 new TLDs per year, it would take us about 7,000 years to reach a number of TLDs that we know can readily be provided and supported using today's hardware, technology, and administrative procedures. We have known this fact for years - see, for example what I wrote on this in year 2000: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/ialc/platform.htm#dnspol-tldpol Just to make sure that this thought experiment wasn't floating on air several years ago a couple of us ran an actual experiment in which we grabbed a copy of the then existing .com zone - something on the order of 30,000,000 names at that time - and elevated it to be a root zone on a PC-based server. The poor machine, a relatively standard PC running linux, gagged, groaned, and memory swapped/paged its way as fast as the poor disk could run - but it worked. I also created some synthetic zone files with a mix of randomly generated names of various lengths (this was done to make sure we well exercised any caches with a realistic mix of cache misses) and ran synthetic queries, with a controlled number of queries for non-existent names. Again, we ran out of machine horsepower/memory before we hit any DNS specific technical limit on the number of names. (Unfortunately, since this was a spare-time-in-the-evening task, we did not publish our findings in a nice concise technical paper. Silly us. And the machines have long since been recycled and the data/software lost among ancient backups.) Since that time, machines have gotten much bigger and faster. Moreover, it is possible to partition DNS traffic so that, for example, queries for names beginning with the letters a-f go to one machine, those with g-l to another, etc. What I'm getting at here is that those who are waiving red flags of fear at even small numbers of new TLDs are doing so for reasons that are not technical but for some other reason, mainly protection of some economic interest. This is why we need always take care to distinguish between governance to promote the public interest and governance that is really a tool to protect somebody's bank account. --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 Sun Mar 2 04:43:44 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 01:43:44 -0800 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080302040146.GA26604@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080302094344.GB386@hserus.net> William Drake [02/03/08 08:54 +0100]: >"Please accept my resignation. I don?t care to belong to any club that will >have me as a member". --Groucho Marx That's some soup I just can't duck, thank you so very much Got a collection of marx brothers dvds that's been long left unwatched for the nth time, so - yes, a much more productive way to spend what's left of my weekend. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Mar 2 06:27:47 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:27:47 +0100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20080302094344.GB386@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 3/2/08 10:43 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > William Drake [02/03/08 08:54 +0100]: >> "Please accept my resignation. I don?t care to belong to any club that will >> have me as a member". --Groucho Marx > > That's some soup I just can't duck, thank you so very much > > Got a collection of marx brothers dvds that's been long left unwatched for > the nth time, so - yes, a much more productive way to spend what's left of > my weekend. Sounds like a good strategy. And to clarify, in light of a question raised offline, the joke was meant to suggest that I didn't wish to be classified in the context of another round of discussion fetishizing differences, not that I had issues being identified with my supposed class mates. The quote was from Groucho, not 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 Sun Mar 2 06:30:10 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:00:10 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080302094344.GB386@hserus.net> Message-ID: <000801c87c58$c771cf30$56556d90$@net> Sounds like a lot of the people on this list need to go throw karl back onto their shelf, go buy groucho :) > offline, the joke was meant to suggest that I didn't wish to be > classified in the context of another round of discussion fetishizing differences, > not that I had issues being identified with my supposed class mates. The > quote was from Groucho, not Karl. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun Mar 2 07:21:58 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:21:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080302122158.GA19224@sources.org> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 02:37:18PM -0800, Sylvia Caras wrote a message of 21 lines which said: > I find the current small number of top domains useful when I access > a web site so that I have a bit of sense of where I am, who is the > sponsor, ... Hmmm, most of the domains are a ".com". Does it really give you any information at all? When it is not a ".com", well, if it is a ".fr" or ".de", it gives you something (the fact the the registrant has a link to France or Germany) but when it is a ".tv", ".nu" or ".org", what does it give you? May be it would be a good idea is the TLDs had more semantics. But, currenly, the vast majority of the domains are in a TLD with no semantics at 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 krischenowski at dotberlin.de Sun Mar 2 07:44:44 2008 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:44:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01a401c87c63$32790e60$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Sylvia, what I understand about the bottom-up principles at ICANN is that there has never been a discussion where a TLD fits, since ICANN never proposed TLDs itself. TLDs emerge from the Internet community and other community organisations. Your opinion of a pleasant small number of TLDs is a very single one. In Oct 2007 the German Internet Association made a trustable and reprentative study on cityTLDs among 1,814 German Internet users. The result was that an overwhelming majority of Internet users think that cityTLDs would give them much better orientation on the Internet and in the city. Only 7% find them confusing. Coming back to my first paragraph, if there's a community which can demonstrate that a TLD would have added value at least for them, why should ICANN not approve such a TLD. I personally find most of the ccTLDs and some gTLDs more or less useless for me, but if they are of any usefullness to others, why should they not been there? Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sylvia Caras [mailto:sylvia.caras at gmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 1. März 2008 23:37 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers For me, a central part of the top level domain conversation is how many might there be. If there is to be a limit, .org, .com, ., ... then there's a discussion to have about where cities and which cities fit. If the number is to be very large, it's a different discussion, and I guess up to the lobbyist and purchaser. I find the current small number of top domains useful when I access a web site so that I have a bit of sense of where I am, who is the sponsor, ... Is that useful to others? How do many or few top level domains serve the individual user? Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Mar 2 15:42:32 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 12:42:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers In-Reply-To: <01a401c87c63$32790e60$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> References: <01a401c87c63$32790e60$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN wrote: > > Your opinion of a pleasant small number of TLDs is a very single one. I don't have strong feelings about .nyc versus .nyc.us or other versions. I'm curious how ordinary people understand the web places that they visit. I read the URL, mentally differentiate between .com and .org, sometimes visit whois to see the names behind a site, ... I sometimes want to know the commercial or political interest. I guess that's probably not what most people do. Here, I'm wanting to separate out the technical part of this, which of course creates boundaries for the conversation, and look at naming from the point of view of ordinary people, children first coming on line, people not at ease with English or this character set, ... That's where I think the governance aspect comes in. Much design today is wonderfully adapted to use. And much is dreadful. So I'm wanting to think wisely from the end-users point of view. 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 ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 2 16:46:15 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:46:15 -0300 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CB2027.7090509@rits.org.br> :) --c.a. William Drake wrote: > On 3/2/08 5:01 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > >> Carlos Afonso [02/03/08 00:42 -0300]: >>> Suresh, sorry to say this, but you sound like a religious shrink who claims >>> only God is the salvation for this unfaithful and reckless civil society, >>> mentally helpless in the hands of implacable demons like MM and his satanic >>> followers. Should we follow the brotherhood of Drake, Peake & Doria, then? >>> Religiosity aside, I would be comfortable with it :) >> Call me the voice in the wilderness. Or at least, someone pointing out >> something very basic, very obvious, that mere politeness seems to stop >> people from pointing out. >> >>> Should we follow the brotherhood of Drake, Peake & Doria, then? >>> Religiosity aside, I would be comfortable with it :) >> If that's a new church, sign me up for it. Amen. >> >> srs > > "Please accept my resignation. I don¹t care to belong to any club that will > have me as a member". --Groucho Marx > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Mar 2 17:50:01 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 14:50:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers Message-ID: <613505.32951.qm@web54102.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Sylvia, I'd ask how many people have any understanding of what .cc, .nf, .nu and a myriad of other small ccTLDs are? Internet users generally understand that the ccTLD for the country they come from often indicates the web site, or email or whatever, has some link to their country, and I'd guess that many would understand what .de, .uk and a few others would mean. So a city TLD, for example, would be perfect in creating a link to a locality. A myriad of TLDs would probably be no different to the myriad of small ccTLDs that currently exist. I mean, how many people know what country .ma, .ba or .bi are the ccTLDs for? That said, Peter Dambier's earlier comment that "Today the ccTLD's are useless", along with the rest of his posting, is utter garbage. Tell that to the registrants of the 12 million .de domain names to begin with. There is plenty of research this comment is the utter garbage I mention. He also fails to understand the reasoning behind .aero, even if this doesn't change whether it is useful or not. Nor does he understand the growth in accessing the internet through mobile devices. Doesn't mean there is a need for .mobi or a better way to go about this though, but in 5-10 years time, mobile internet may overtake other forms of access to the web, and a means of differentiating websites for access by mobile devices may be, or may not be, useful. And .xxx made no sense. Purely from a censorship point of view. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Sylvia Caras To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Monday, 3 March, 2008 7:42:32 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN wrote: > > Your opinion of a pleasant small number of TLDs is a very single one. I don't have strong feelings about .nyc versus .nyc.us or other versions. I'm curious how ordinary people understand the web places that they visit. I read the URL, mentally differentiate between .com and .org, sometimes visit whois to see the names behind a site, ... I sometimes want to know the commercial or political interest. I guess that's probably not what most people do. Here, I'm wanting to separate out the technical part of this, which of course creates boundaries for the conversation, and look at naming from the point of view of ordinary people, children first coming on line, people not at ease with English or this character set, ... That's where I think the governance aspect comes in. Much design today is wonderfully adapted to use. And much is dreadful. So I'm wanting to think wisely from the end-users point of view. 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun Mar 2 19:30:05 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:30:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York In-Reply-To: References: <01a401c87c63$32790e60$62b2a8c0@LENOVOA79D6BA6> Message-ID: <47CB468D.9090500@cavebear.com> Sylvia Caras wrote: > Here, I'm wanting to ... look at naming > from the point of view of ordinary people, children first coming on > line Is it useful to think that we are wise enough to impose, from above, a taxonomy of names and meanings onto the internet? Suppose the internet had started 30 years earlier and we had, in the usage of the day, created a TLD called .gay to hold things that were light and happy. We'd find today that such a TLD would be mispurposed, the meaning of the word used in the name had substantially changed. My point of view is that internet governance, at lest with regard to domain names, ought to be limited to allocating "slots" - rights to put a name into a zone file. The governance system should be entirely blind to the character string composing the name itself. What that name is ought to entirely be up to the whim of the person/entity to whom that slot is granted (as long as the name is not previously used and meets internet naming standards, such as being 1 to 63 bytes in length, properly conforming to IDN encoding prefixes, etc) (Disputes about names can be waged in the already existing fora for resolving such disputes; we hardly need to establish another one.) Humans appear to like their language to be pliable - they tend to take Humpty's side in his chat with Alice from Chapter VI of "Through the Looking Glass" (http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-06.html ): `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' --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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 3 00:25:23 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080303052546.7681BE1C87@smtp3.electricembers.net> Avri I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. I agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. > > And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > that > > some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. > > > I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those > who require purity of belief and origin. There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some amount of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty oath or passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will only defend what I asked for. Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as a sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some level of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state and market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, and so on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but one cant take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That will not allow CS to be effective at all. Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS group. Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with the WSIS plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - gender, development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous communities and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite well - see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some extent IGC was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of obvious self-definitions - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about exclusions from the IS - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in society, about human rights, about disability rights, - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and spaces by state's power - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect on social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social and economic justice - many other such things. All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are generally the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each group will further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged communities, others towards consumer rights and such. >I think this was a good thing, though > I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a > quick call at the end. Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for thorough discussion before positions are adopted. > What troubles me is > the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > belonging to any to group Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating it. >or that those who do belong to other groups > are somehow suspect. None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one cant have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis a vis whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and be with that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't think you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member participating in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with ICANN policy. I think it is simple and obvious. In > terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > recmmened by civil society players. Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public interest player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double vote when they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through market power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this position for the present purposes. I think within each of those > groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us > to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > positions to AC. Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this issue of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I still can't understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the problem comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the meaning of a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they should be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be identified as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy making process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities makes CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical community as in people with special technical expertise - as per their political persuasions (you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on Internet censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS. > I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > have an association and on their relevant expertise. No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their experience, expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone ICANN wants as their reps.... And we all know that. > in a consensus environment it is not the > body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues when we are looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness of voice matters too. I think > step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we > are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be times when we see greater consensus for a larger step up process. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > > On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: > > > > > And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > that > > some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. > > > I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those > who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > And > > also to have a set of broad common political positions. > > In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with > you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the views > put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though > I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a > quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate > positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me is > the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups > are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we > recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of > litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we > believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions > while acting in their individual capacities. > > > In fact at the time > > the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying > > basic > > policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > > True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't is > that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think > step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we > are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the > the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In > terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those > groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us > to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that > is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to > the UNSG's office.. > > I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group > of people who they think can represent their views and who they think > can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in another > context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for > my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the > body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Mon Mar 3 01:06:00 2008 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 06:06:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20080303052546.7681BE1C87@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080303052546.7681BE1C87@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths teachers proud. This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are, and that you don't care for any understanding they may provide - and establishing the IGC first, and the IGF as a consequence, as an "in absentia" tribunal for them. Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG meeting. And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530 > From: Parminder > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: "bridge", > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > Avri > > > > I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. I > agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > >>> that > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. > >> > >> > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some amount > of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty oath or > passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will only > defend what I asked for. > > > > Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as a > sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some level > of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state and > market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, and so > on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but one cant > take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That will > not allow CS to be effective at all. > > > > Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self > self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS group. > Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with the WSIS > plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - gender, > development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous communities > and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite well - > see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some extent IGC > was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG > processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of obvious > self-definitions > > > > - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about exclusions > from the IS > > - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in > society, about human rights, about disability rights, > > - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and spaces by > state's power > > - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect on > social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social and > economic justice > > - many other such things. > > > > All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are generally > the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each group will > further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged > communities, others towards consumer rights and such. > > > >> I think this was a good thing, though > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a > >> quick call at the end. > > > > Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for thorough > discussion before positions are adopted. > > > >> What troubles me is > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > >> belonging to any to group > > > > Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating it. > > > >> or that those who do belong to other groups > >> are somehow suspect. > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one cant > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis a vis > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and be with > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't think > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, > right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member participating > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with ICANN > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. > > > > In > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > >> recmmened by civil society players. > > > > Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public interest > player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double vote when > they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through market > power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this position > for the present purposes. > > > > I think within each of those > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > >> positions to AC. > > > > Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this issue > of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I still can't > understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the problem > comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the meaning of > a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they should > be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be identified > as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy making > process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities makes > CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical community as in > people with special technical expertise - as per their political persuasions > (you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on Internet > censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS. > > > >> I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. > > > > No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their experience, > expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone ICANN > wants as their reps.... And we all know that. > > > >> in a consensus environment it is not the > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > > > While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues when we are > looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under > consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when > discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness of voice > matters too. > > > > I think > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be times when > we see greater consensus for a larger step up process. > > > > Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM > >> To: Governance Caucus > >> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > >> available > >> > >> > >> On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > >>> that > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. > >> > >> > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > >> > >> > >>> And > >>> also to have a set of broad common political positions. > >> > >> In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with > >> you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the views > >> put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a > >> quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate > >> positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me is > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > >> belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups > >> are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we > >> recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of > >> litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we > >> believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions > >> while acting in their individual capacities. > >> > >>> In fact at the time > >>> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying > >>> basic > >>> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > >> > >> True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't is > >> that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > >> > >> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the > >> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > >> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > >> positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that > >> is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to > >> the UNSG's office.. > >> > >> I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group > >> of people who they think can represent their views and who they think > >> can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in another > >> context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for > >> my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > >> > >> 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 Mon Mar 3 01:47:56 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:47:56 +0300 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080303052546.7681BE1C87@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080303052546.7681BE1C87@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one cant > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis a vis > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and be with > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. So.....Avri, Wolfie, Adam, Jeanette and others who hold dual memberships in MAG and IGC are ok in both camps because they aren't central enough and/or the MAG doesn't set policy? But if the IGF did make policy (which you and others on this list seem to want) then those dual folk wouldn't be "CS" in your book anymore? (depending on "centrality" of course). I think we can both agree on the use of the word "absurd" here. BTW I don't think > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, > right. I am perfectly happy having Bertrand, Raul/Veni (temporary gov folk in WSIS) or anyone else, vote as long as they agree to the charter. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member participating > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with ICANN > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. I am curious to know what actions you plan, as coordinator of this list, in regards to list participation by Thomas Narten and Wendy Seltzer? Would you unsubscribe them? Moderate their posts in which ICANN is mentioned? I have a haiku for that notion as well: Spartacus Youth League Enhanced Cooperation Neoliberal -- 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 Mon Mar 3 02:06:36 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:36:36 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080303070646.35047678BF@smtp1.electricembers.net> Alejandro > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths > teachers proud. Please stick to discussing the issue. Avoid unnecessary sarcasm, just because the other side is being polite. For you must know by this time that I am not such a wimp at these games when it comes to that. So please mind the style and language you are using, or you may have to regret it. (Your last email was sarcastic enough - "Parminder, thanks for the rich supply of QED", but I ignored the sarcasm. But now I take it that if I don't say something to the above effect you will just carry on with your unpleasant ways.) Ok, now about the issues. > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are. Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular branch of CS is engaging on advocacy) Same with government. Not an issue of disliking. I have got many great friends in the government, and am very appreciative of their work. Many have my much higher respect than many CS persons. Same with people involved (centrally) with IG policy making bodies. But sitting and voting as CS, NO. (QED :)) >and that you > don't care for any understanding they may provide. Two issues here. I am relatively clearer about the categories and people I am speaking about. But you are deliberately vague. I cannot answer about a 'they' without knowing who is this 'they'. So why don't who also clarify, as you agree I am doing, when you use these terms. So, specifically, who is this 'they' you refer to in this statement. I cant answer without knowing that. Second, I can still say I care very much for any understanding anyone can provide. Why does one has to be able to call oneself CS and vote as CS to give me understanding... I take 'understanding' from anyone and from all. > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG meeting. I had a lots of 'colors of opinion' participating - in fact some which did not participate earlier. But these colors don't look like colors to you, and only one particular color is color to you. That's not my problem. > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." 'real opponents of civil society' :). And you keep accusing me of dishing out QEDs. Anyway, please tell me, if you can discuss these issues openly, who are these 'real opponents'. If we identify them we can fight them together. Sorry to say that, it is you have a narrow vision of what is CS, who are real opponents of CS, what should be CS be doing... I have much much broader vision, and as does CS in general. "real opponents of CS' keep changing - -ask the CS involved in WTO and WIPO who are real opponents of CS'. You may be surprised. Or ask consumer right groups, or environmental groups.... Try whispering in their ears, lets only take care of the 'real opponents of CS'(as defined by you). All the issues implicated in all the above fora are important issues for IG as well. So please can we go beyond your identified 'real opponents of CS' and do some other work as well, which some others may feel as or, at times, even more important. Parminder PS: My email which you characterized as part of weekened QEDs was sent in a bright sunny Monday morning in Bangalore. But that's a minor detail. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:36 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > Parminder, > > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths > teachers proud. > > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are, and that you > don't care for any understanding they may provide - and establishing the > IGC first, and the IGF as a consequence, as an "in absentia" tribunal for > them. > > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG meeting. > > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530 > > From: Parminder > > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' > > Subject: RE: "bridge", > > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > > > > Avri > > > > > > > > I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. I > > agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > > >>> that > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > > > > > There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some > amount > > of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty > oath or > > passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will only > > defend what I asked for. > > > > > > > > Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as a > > sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some > level > > of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state and > > market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, and > so > > on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but one > cant > > take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That > will > > not allow CS to be effective at all. > > > > > > > > Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self > > self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS > group. > > Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with the > WSIS > > plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - > gender, > > development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous > communities > > and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite well > - > > see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some extent > IGC > > was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG > > processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of > obvious > > self-definitions > > > > > > > > - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about exclusions > > from the IS > > > > - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in > > society, about human rights, about disability rights, > > > > - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and spaces > by > > state's power > > > > - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect on > > social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social and > > economic justice > > > > - many other such things. > > > > > > > > All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are > generally > > the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each group > will > > further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged > > communities, others towards consumer rights and such. > > > > > > > >> I think this was a good thing, though > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a > > > >> quick call at the end. > > > > > > > > Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for thorough > > discussion before positions are adopted. > > > > > > > >> What troubles me is > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > >> belonging to any to group > > > > > > > > Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating it. > > > > > > > >> or that those who do belong to other groups > > > >> are somehow suspect. > > > > > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one > cant > > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis a > vis > > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and be > with > > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't > think > > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, > > right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member > participating > > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with > ICANN > > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. > > > > > > > > In > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. > > > > > > > > Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public > interest > > player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double vote > when > > they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through market > > power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this > position > > for the present purposes. > > > > > > > > I think within each of those > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > > > >> positions to AC. > > > > > > > > Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this > issue > > of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I still > can't > > understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the > problem > > comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the > meaning of > > a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they > should > > be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be > identified > > as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy > making > > process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities > makes > > CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical community > as in > > people with special technical expertise - as per their political > persuasions > > (you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on > Internet > > censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS. > > > > > > > >> I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. > > > > > > > > No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their experience, > > expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone > ICANN > > wants as their reps.... And we all know that. > > > > > > > >> in a consensus environment it is not the > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > > > > > > > While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues when we > are > > looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under > > consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when > > discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness of > voice > > matters too. > > > > > > > > I think > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > > > > > I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be times > when > > we see greater consensus for a larger step up process. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > > >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM > > > >> To: Governance Caucus > > > >> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG > > > >> available > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > > >>> that > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> And > > > >>> also to have a set of broad common political positions. > > > >> > > > >> In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with > > > >> you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the views > > > >> put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a > > > >> quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate > > > >> positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me is > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > >> belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups > > > >> are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we > > > >> recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of > > > >> litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we > > > >> believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions > > > >> while acting in their individual capacities. > > > >> > > > >>> In fact at the time > > > >>> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying > > > >>> basic > > > >>> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > > > >> > > > >> True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't is > > > >> that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > >> > > > >> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the > > > >> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > > > >> positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that > > > >> is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to > > > >> the UNSG's office.. > > > >> > > > >> I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group > > > >> of people who they think can represent their views and who they think > > > >> can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in another > > > >> context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for > > > >> my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > > >> > > > >> 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Mar 3 02:28:17 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:28:17 +1100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080303070646.35047678BF@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <76d101c87d00$2e7ec0f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> >Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally >involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular branch >of CS is engaging on advocacy) I disagree, Parminder (and strongly!) There may be occasions when people have to declare conflicts of interest, or announce withdrawal from discussion on a particular issue, but the above statement is far too broad (or the wording far too loose) I see no reason why an ICANN board member, past or present, can't consider themselves part of civil society and participate here. Same with all Internet governance bodies and Internet related organizations. They are all struggling with the evolution of the Internet as much as we are, and may be positively influenced by "us" as much as we might positively be influenced by "them". Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 03 March 2008 18:07 > To: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > > Alejandro > > > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths > > teachers proud. > > Please stick to discussing the issue. Avoid unnecessary sarcasm, just > because the other side is being polite. For you must know by this time > that > I am not such a wimp at these games when it comes to that. So please mind > the style and language you are using, or you may have to regret it. > > (Your last email was sarcastic enough - "Parminder, thanks for the rich > supply of QED", but I ignored the sarcasm. But now I take it that if I > don't > say something to the above effect you will just carry on with your > unpleasant ways.) > > Ok, now about the issues. > > > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those > > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are. > > Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally > involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular > branch > of CS is engaging on advocacy) > > Same with government. Not an issue of disliking. I have got many great > friends in the government, and am very appreciative of their work. Many > have > my much higher respect than many CS persons. Same with people involved > (centrally) with IG policy making bodies. But sitting and voting as CS, > NO. > (QED :)) > > >and that you > > don't care for any understanding they may provide. > > Two issues here. I am relatively clearer about the categories and people I > am speaking about. But you are deliberately vague. I cannot answer about a > 'they' without knowing who is this 'they'. So why don't who also clarify, > as > you agree I am doing, when you use these terms. So, specifically, who is > this 'they' you refer to in this statement. I cant answer without knowing > that. > > Second, I can still say I care very much for any understanding anyone can > provide. Why does one has to be able to call oneself CS and vote as CS to > give me understanding... I take 'understanding' from anyone and from all. > > > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG > meeting. > > I had a lots of 'colors of opinion' participating - in fact some which did > not participate earlier. But these colors don't look like colors to you, > and > only one particular color is color to you. That's not my problem. > > > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of > > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real > > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for > > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." > > 'real opponents of civil society' :). And you keep accusing me of dishing > out QEDs. > > Anyway, please tell me, if you can discuss these issues openly, who are > these 'real opponents'. If we identify them we can fight them together. > > Sorry to say that, it is you have a narrow vision of what is CS, who are > real opponents of CS, what should be CS be doing... I have much much > broader > vision, and as does CS in general. > > "real opponents of CS' keep changing - -ask the CS involved in WTO and > WIPO > who are real opponents of CS'. You may be surprised. Or ask consumer right > groups, or environmental groups.... Try whispering in their ears, lets > only > take care of the 'real opponents of CS'(as defined by you). > > All the issues implicated in all the above fora are important issues for > IG > as well. So please can we go beyond your identified 'real opponents of CS' > and do some other work as well, which some others may feel as or, at > times, > even more important. > > Parminder > > PS: My email which you characterized as part of weekened QEDs was sent in > a > bright sunny Monday morning in Bangalore. But that's a minor detail. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:36 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG > > available > > > > Parminder, > > > > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths > > teachers proud. > > > > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those > > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are, and that you > > don't care for any understanding they may provide - and establishing the > > IGC first, and the IGF as a consequence, as an "in absentia" tribunal > for > > them. > > > > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG > meeting. > > > > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of > > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real > > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for > > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > . > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > . > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530 > > > From: Parminder > > > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' > > > Subject: RE: "bridge", > > > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > > > > > > > > Avri > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. > I > > > agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > > > > >>> that > > > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential > condition. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > > > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > > > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for > those > > > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some > > amount > > > of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty > > oath or > > > passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will > only > > > defend what I asked for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as a > > > sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some > > level > > > of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state > and > > > market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, > and > > so > > > on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but one > > cant > > > take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That > > will > > > not allow CS to be effective at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self > > > self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS > > group. > > > Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with the > > WSIS > > > plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - > > gender, > > > development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous > > communities > > > and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite > well > > - > > > see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some > extent > > IGC > > > was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG > > > processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of > > obvious > > > self-definitions > > > > > > > > > > > > - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about > exclusions > > > from the IS > > > > > > - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in > > > society, about human rights, about disability rights, > > > > > > - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and > spaces > > by > > > state's power > > > > > > - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect > on > > > social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social > and > > > economic justice > > > > > > - many other such things. > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are > > generally > > > the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each group > > will > > > further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged > > > communities, others towards consumer rights and such. > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think this was a good thing, though > > > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do > a > > > > > >> quick call at the end. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for > thorough > > > discussion before positions are adopted. > > > > > > > > > > > >> What troubles me is > > > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > > > >> belonging to any to group > > > > > > > > > > > > Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating > it. > > > > > > > > > > > >> or that those who do belong to other groups > > > > > >> are somehow suspect. > > > > > > > > > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one > > cant > > > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis > a > > vis > > > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and > be > > with > > > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't > > think > > > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, > > > right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member > > participating > > > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with > > ICANN > > > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > > > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public > > interest > > > player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double vote > > when > > > they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through > market > > > power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this > > position > > > for the present purposes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think within each of those > > > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > > > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > > > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > > > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for > us > > > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > > > > > >> positions to AC. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this > > issue > > > of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I still > > can't > > > understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the > > problem > > > comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the > > meaning of > > > a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they > > should > > > be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be > > identified > > > as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy > > making > > > process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities > > makes > > > CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical community > > as in > > > people with special technical expertise - as per their political > > persuasions > > > (you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on > > Internet > > > censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS. > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > > > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > > > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their > experience, > > > expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone > > ICANN > > > wants as their reps.... And we all know that. > > > > > > > > > > > >> in a consensus environment it is not the > > > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > > > > > > > > > > > While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues when > we > > are > > > looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under > > > consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when > > > discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness of > > voice > > > matters too. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think > > > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement > we > > > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > > > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be times > > when > > > we see greater consensus for a larger step up process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > > > > >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM > > > > > >> To: Governance Caucus > > > > > >> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > > MAG > > > > > >> available > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > > > > >>> that > > > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential > condition. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > > > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > > > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for > those > > > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> And > > > > > >>> also to have a set of broad common political positions. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with > > > > > >> you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the > views > > > > > >> put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though > > > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do > a > > > > > >> quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate > > > > > >> positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me > is > > > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > > > >> belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups > > > > > >> are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we > > > > > >> recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of > > > > > >> litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we > > > > > >> believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions > > > > > >> while acting in their individual capacities. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> In fact at the time > > > > > >>> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying > > > > > >>> basic > > > > > >>> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't > is > > > > > >> that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think > > > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement > we > > > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > > > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the > > > > > >> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In > > > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > > > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those > > > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > > > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > > > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > > > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for > us > > > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > > > > > >> positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not > believe > > > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > > > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that > > > > > >> is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to > > > > > >> the UNSG's office.. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group > > > > > >> of people who they think can represent their views and who they think > > > > > >> can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in > another > > > > > >> context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for > > > > > >> my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the > > > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: > 02/03/2008 15:59 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: 02/03/2008 15:59 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Mon Mar 3 02:37:28 2008 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <5fmg5b$84l94h@mail.servidor.unam.mx> References: <5fmg5b$84l94h@mail.servidor.unam.mx> Message-ID: Parminder, > > PS: My email which you characterized as part of weekened QEDs was sent in a > bright sunny Monday morning in Bangalore. But that's a minor detail. > Apologies. That's one advance position I can't beat you on. Tim and Ian have said the rest succintly enough. And they didn't have to use the word "sectarian" so I bow to their powers of expression too. Alejandro Pisanty ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 02:51:25 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:51:25 +0100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <906B7F3E-F9B6-4159-B7BF-82E49E216818@psg.com> On 3 Mar 2008, at 06:25, Parminder wrote: > > Avri > > I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. thank you. > I agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. and a few comments. > > > > > And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is > obvious > > > that > > > some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential > condition. > > > > > > I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > > a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath > or > > passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for > those > > who require purity of belief and origin. > > There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some > amount of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - > 'loyalty oath or passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for > the later, I will only defend what I asked for. > > Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as > a sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, > ‘some level of’. In some ways to define itself as distinct from > organized state and market power, from institutions vis a vis un- > organized constituents, and so on. These boundaries may get > negotiated in different contexts, but one cant take the stance of > not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That will not allow CS > to be effective at all. > > Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self > self-definition - repeat, ‘some amount of’. And IGC is ONE such CS > group. Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated > with the WSIS plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of > progressive views - gender, development finance, access to > knowledge, disability, indigenous communities and such. (The larger > WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite well - see the Geneva > and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some extent IGC was > supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG > processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of > obvious self-definitions > > - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about > exclusions from the IS > - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in > society, about human rights, about disability rights, > - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and > spaces by state's power > - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect > on social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on > social and economic justice > - many other such things. > > All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are > generally the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. > Each group will further fine- tune, some more towards interests of > disadvantaged communities, others towards consumer rights and such. I think what you call. 'some amount of self-definition' + a need for someone to declare that would be what I would call a loyalty oath and a litmus test. it is a matter of semantics and value judgement. I believe you think this is a good and necessary thing, while I think it can be a divisive thing. I beleive this group has a charter and that as far as we can go in the IGC is that charter. Any further development of positions we must all adhere to risks problems. > > > > What troubles me is > > the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > belonging to any to group > > Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating > it. Because I keep inferring it from things that are written. And while th statement above may be a bit strong, I think the one below is not so far off the mark. > > >or that those who do belong to other groups > > are somehow suspect. > > None said this, again. Not against any ‘group’ for sure. But, yes > one cant have a central position in an organization that makes > policy, and vis a vis whose polices a CS group may be trying some > advocacy and action, and be with that CS group as well. That is on > the face of it absurd. BTW I don’t think you will like a government > person voting on our caucus positions here, right. In the same way I > wont have an ICANN full board member participating in developing > IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with ICANN policy. > I think it is simple and obvious. i think that is that person sees themselves as CS and can say they agree with the IGC charter, then we have no basis for excluding them. I think we run into a problem when we exclude people from these policy making boards from our definitions of CS. We want these groups to be multistakeholder, and groups like the ICANN board become more multistakeholder all the time. If upon becoming a member of the ICANN board their participation in/as CS becomes problematic we are, I believe, contradicting and hurting ourselves. Strangely enough, there are those in ICANN who object, some strongly, to all these CS types getting onto the board and the other policy groups so we find that people who try to get involved from CS in these groups risk being unacceptable to both groups. > > In > > terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of > the > > 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > recmmened by civil society players. > > Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public > interest player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a > double vote when they are so heavily represented in governance > bodies, one through market power, and second through policy > processes. But I'll accept this position for the present purposes. I don't accept this double vote theory. If i did, then the fact that governments vote with their laws, and the fact that consumers vote with their wallets would disqualify all of us from participating in multistakeholder groups. While the notion of stakeholder is one some people disagree with, the notion of stakeholder does mean that that at some point all of us participate in the system in some other way. > > I think within each of those > > groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > > PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for > the > > disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... > and > > of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea > for us > > to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > > positions to AC. > > Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this > issue of not understanding what you mean by internet community here > (I still can't understand why we don’t clarify this for once and for > all, when the problem comes up so often. Why could there be > hesitancy in clarifying the meaning of a term). You here mean ICANN, > RIRs etc, right. No, don’t think they should be in CS quota. They > make Internet related policy, and have to be identified as Internet > policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy making > process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities > makes CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical > community as in people with special technical expertise – as per > their political persuasions (you will like to exclude those who > advice authoritarian govs on Internet censorship, right!) they are > very valued members of CS. In this case I believe you are making participation in another group a disqualifiedr Something I thought you indicated you were not going to do. > > > I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > > that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > > be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > have an association and on their relevant expertise. > > No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their > experience, expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, > managers, anyone ICANN wants as their reps.... And we all know that. Um, as far as I can tell thee is just 1 ICANN person on the MAG, though there are several people who are also involved with ICANN. And I beleive this person ame out of the PS allotment. > > > in a consensus environment it is not the > > body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues > when we are looking for body counts, and the body counts is the > issue under consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts > matter when discussions take place and decisions are taken, while > effectiveness of voice matters too. I doubt anyone is confused by my statement. I am saying that I have been convinced, by people wiser then me, that body count in a consensus body is less important then the effectiveness of the voice. and since the body count issue has been resolved since before the formation of the first MAG by the powers that be within the WSIS and the UN, i think we are better of working on an effective voice then arguing about body count. and as i also said, i think that all of the CS national groups should also start pushing their gov'ts to include CS voices in the gov't recommendations - yet another way of getting a 'double vote' a. ps. as i am a subscriber to the Gov list, i do not need my own extra copy of the message. please feel free to leave me off the cc list.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 03:11:37 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:11:37 +0100 Subject: VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG References: <76d101c87d00$2e7ec0f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425A8C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, it is not my intention to contribute to a growing confusion. Like always you can learn something from history. It is like in the first days of WSIS when it became more or less clear that civil society will have to play a role but nobody knew who and what civil society is. There was a very vague definition made by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) of the UN in a report to the General Assembly from 2000 on NGO involvement in UN affairs. The report listed, inter alia, several groups, from trade unions to youth organisations, from environmentalists to human rights groups, from philantropic institutions to think tanks. This grouping was used by Louise and Alain (the CS liaisons to the WSIS Secretariat) as a guideline to compose the very controversial CS Bureau in WSIS. BTW, when they came with the propsal which had about "nine categories" of CS NGOs, a discussion started whether the proposed grups are okay and a lot of other groups were proposed. Within two hours (it was already midnight) the number grew from nine to 21 and so the CSB was composed by 21 members, including "networks" and "regional CS groups". As a result of the JIU definition, "local public authorities" (that is city administrations) got a seat in the CS bureau. According to German law, Lord Mayors are elected representatives and are part of the government. And the two WSIS city summits in Lyon and Bilbao had been not CS events (although a lot of civil society people had been involved). On the other hand, the World Press Freedom Committee, representing major big private newspaper and media conglomerats (including NYT Inc.) became also a meber of the CS Media Caucus. And it worked. Ronnie was a champion for media freedom and it helped CS to move forward, although he watered down the concept of the Right to Communicate, which was not loved by the private media. (BTW, I myself was a member of the CS Bureau not as a representtive of the IG CS Caucus - which I co-founded and co-chaired at this time with Y J Pak - but as a representative of the "think tanks" because universities were grouped under this heading) . What I want to say is that life is very often different what theory says. Very often it depends from the individual her/himself. On the other hand, institutions are represented by individuals and very often individuals have to follow first of all the mandate they got from the institution. Andf there are institutions in IG which are clearly speaking on behalf of CS and there are institutions which are very supportive to CS but have another constituency which probably would not be happy to be defined as "civil society". Is an eingineer per se a member of the civil society, and when yes, under which circumstances? When he works for a university? Or for Cisco? Or for a small start up company? Or for a NGO? However, I think for the purpose of the MAG and IG in general (also for ICANN with its At Large arm) it would make sense to define some criteria (as ALAC did for ICANN the IGCSC is certainly the right body to do that) so that you could have something in your hands in case of nominations or seats in a body when you evaluate whether a candidate and whether she/he can be treated a CS or not. But please make the criteria as simple as possible and include some elements of flexibility. My 5 cents. wolfgang ________________________________ Lähettäjä: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Lähetetty: ma 3.3.2008 8:28 Vastaanottaja: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Aihe: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available >Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally >involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular branch >of CS is engaging on advocacy) I disagree, Parminder (and strongly!) There may be occasions when people have to declare conflicts of interest, or announce withdrawal from discussion on a particular issue, but the above statement is far too broad (or the wording far too loose) I see no reason why an ICANN board member, past or present, can't consider themselves part of civil society and participate here. Same with all Internet governance bodies and Internet related organizations. They are all struggling with the evolution of the Internet as much as we are, and may be positively influenced by "us" as much as we might positively be influenced by "them". Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 03 March 2008 18:07 > To: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > > Alejandro > > > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths > > teachers proud. > > Please stick to discussing the issue. Avoid unnecessary sarcasm, just > because the other side is being polite. For you must know by this time > that > I am not such a wimp at these games when it comes to that. So please mind > the style and language you are using, or you may have to regret it. > > (Your last email was sarcastic enough - "Parminder, thanks for the rich > supply of QED", but I ignored the sarcasm. But now I take it that if I > don't > say something to the above effect you will just carry on with your > unpleasant ways.) > > Ok, now about the issues. > > > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those > > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are. > > Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally > involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular > branch > of CS is engaging on advocacy) > > Same with government. Not an issue of disliking. I have got many great > friends in the government, and am very appreciative of their work. Many > have > my much higher respect than many CS persons. Same with people involved > (centrally) with IG policy making bodies. But sitting and voting as CS, > NO. > (QED :)) > > >and that you > > don't care for any understanding they may provide. > > Two issues here. I am relatively clearer about the categories and people I > am speaking about. But you are deliberately vague. I cannot answer about a > 'they' without knowing who is this 'they'. So why don't who also clarify, > as > you agree I am doing, when you use these terms. So, specifically, who is > this 'they' you refer to in this statement. I cant answer without knowing > that. > > Second, I can still say I care very much for any understanding anyone can > provide. Why does one has to be able to call oneself CS and vote as CS to > give me understanding... I take 'understanding' from anyone and from all. > > > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG > meeting. > > I had a lots of 'colors of opinion' participating - in fact some which did > not participate earlier. But these colors don't look like colors to you, > and > only one particular color is color to you. That's not my problem. > > > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of > > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real > > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for > > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." > > 'real opponents of civil society' :). And you keep accusing me of dishing > out QEDs. > > Anyway, please tell me, if you can discuss these issues openly, who are > these 'real opponents'. If we identify them we can fight them together. > > Sorry to say that, it is you have a narrow vision of what is CS, who are > real opponents of CS, what should be CS be doing... I have much much > broader > vision, and as does CS in general. > > "real opponents of CS' keep changing - -ask the CS involved in WTO and > WIPO > who are real opponents of CS'. You may be surprised. Or ask consumer right > groups, or environmental groups.... Try whispering in their ears, lets > only > take care of the 'real opponents of CS'(as defined by you). > > All the issues implicated in all the above fora are important issues for > IG > as well. So please can we go beyond your identified 'real opponents of CS' > and do some other work as well, which some others may feel as or, at > times, > even more important. > > Parminder > > PS: My email which you characterized as part of weekened QEDs was sent in > a > bright sunny Monday morning in Bangalore. But that's a minor detail. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:36 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG > > available > > > > Parminder, > > > > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths > > teachers proud. > > > > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those > > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are, and that you > > don't care for any understanding they may provide - and establishing the > > IGC first, and the IGF as a consequence, as an "in absentia" tribunal > for > > them. > > > > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG > meeting. > > > > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of > > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real > > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for > > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > . > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > . > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530 > > > From: Parminder > > > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' > > > Subject: RE: "bridge", > > > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > > > > > > > > Avri > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. > I > > > agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > > > > >>> that > > > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential > condition. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > > > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > > > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for > those > > > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some > > amount > > > of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty > > oath or > > > passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will > only > > > defend what I asked for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as a > > > sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some > > level > > > of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state > and > > > market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, > and > > so > > > on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but one > > cant > > > take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That > > will > > > not allow CS to be effective at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self > > > self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS > > group. > > > Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with the > > WSIS > > > plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - > > gender, > > > development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous > > communities > > > and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite > well > > - > > > see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some > extent > > IGC > > > was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG > > > processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of > > obvious > > > self-definitions > > > > > > > > > > > > - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about > exclusions > > > from the IS > > > > > > - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in > > > society, about human rights, about disability rights, > > > > > > - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and > spaces > > by > > > state's power > > > > > > - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect > on > > > social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social > and > > > economic justice > > > > > > - many other such things. > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are > > generally > > > the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each group > > will > > > further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged > > > communities, others towards consumer rights and such. > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think this was a good thing, though > > > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do > a > > > > > >> quick call at the end. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for > thorough > > > discussion before positions are adopted. > > > > > > > > > > > >> What troubles me is > > > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > > > >> belonging to any to group > > > > > > > > > > > > Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating > it. > > > > > > > > > > > >> or that those who do belong to other groups > > > > > >> are somehow suspect. > > > > > > > > > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one > > cant > > > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis > a > > vis > > > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and > be > > with > > > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't > > think > > > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, > > > right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member > > participating > > > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with > > ICANN > > > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > > > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public > > interest > > > player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double vote > > when > > > they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through > market > > > power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this > > position > > > for the present purposes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think within each of those > > > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > > > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > > > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > > > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for > us > > > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > > > > > >> positions to AC. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this > > issue > > > of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I still > > can't > > > understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the > > problem > > > comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the > > meaning of > > > a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they > > should > > > be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be > > identified > > > as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy > > making > > > process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities > > makes > > > CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical community > > as in > > > people with special technical expertise - as per their political > > persuasions > > > (you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on > > Internet > > > censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS. > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > > > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > > > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their > experience, > > > expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone > > ICANN > > > wants as their reps.... And we all know that. > > > > > > > > > > > >> in a consensus environment it is not the > > > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > > > > > > > > > > > While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues when > we > > are > > > looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under > > > consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when > > > discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness of > > voice > > > matters too. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think > > > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement > we > > > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > > > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be times > > when > > > we see greater consensus for a larger step up process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > > > > >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM > > > > > >> To: Governance Caucus > > > > > >> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > > MAG > > > > > >> available > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious > > > > > >>> that > > > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential > condition. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting > > > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or > > > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for > those > > > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> And > > > > > >>> also to have a set of broad common political positions. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with > > > > > >> you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the > views > > > > > >> put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though > > > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do > a > > > > > >> quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate > > > > > >> positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me > is > > > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > > > >> belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups > > > > > >> are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we > > > > > >> recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of > > > > > >> litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we > > > > > >> believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions > > > > > >> while acting in their individual capacities. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> In fact at the time > > > > > >>> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying > > > > > >>> basic > > > > > >>> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't > is > > > > > >> that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think > > > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement > we > > > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have > > > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the > > > > > >> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In > > > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the > > > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those > > > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro > > > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the > > > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and > > > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for > us > > > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z > > > > > >> positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not > believe > > > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will > > > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that > > > > > >> is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to > > > > > >> the UNSG's office.. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group > > > > > >> of people who they think can represent their views and who they think > > > > > >> can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in > another > > > > > >> context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for > > > > > >> my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the > > > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: > 02/03/2008 15:59 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: 02/03/2008 15:59 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 03:19:42 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:49:42 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080303052546.7681BE1C87@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080303052546.7681BE1C87@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <006501c87d07$565c1ee0$03145ca0$@net> What you are missing is that civil society goals are achieved by consensus, not blind adherence to dogma. And they are certainly not achieved by alienating every single other group that is favorable to your goals if they don't toe your line to your exact specifications. When you do that, you don't build consensus. You try to force consensus as defined by your own narrow world view of civil society. The IGC charter is much more broad and inclusive than you interpret it as. And several organizations + individuals have just as much of a right, if not more to be included in this. And they back it by investing technical expertise, personal commitment, money and resources etc in support of the overall goals of the IGC. You don't have any standing at all to demand their exclusion .. any more than they do to demand your exclusion, or that of the IGP (though I personally feel that wouldn't be a very bad idea at all .. your naivete, and the IGP's petty politicking, are liabilities to this common cause we're meeting together to push forward). suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:55 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available Avri I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. I agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Mar 3 04:40:31 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:40:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080303094031.GA11814@nic.fr> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:35:18PM +0530, Parminder wrote a message of 157 lines which said: > Or was that the only possibility. Probably. As I said, I do not remember a written and detailed proposal (vague ideas in front of a coffee machine or at the IGF plenary do not count) to have both the extended address space (as available in IPv6) and compatibility with the old protocol (IPv4). > Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or > impossible? My bet is that it is in the same category as the squaring of the circle (or having multiple consistent DNS roots). Impossible without a *major* breakthrough in science. Nobel prize candidates may apply but ordinary engineers should instead spend their time on realistic proposals. > Would they have done differently if they were politically > differently inclined, meaning had different socio-political > objectives/ values/ compulsions/ constraints (I know that this is > the tough question, Yes, very tough. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Mar 3 04:48:55 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:48:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York In-Reply-To: <47CA72F4.6080608@cavebear.com> References: <47CA72F4.6080608@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20080303094855.GB11814@nic.fr> On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 01:27:16AM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote a message of 68 lines which said: > From a technical perspective the technical burden of serving a root > zone to the net is equivalent serving a TLD zone. Sylvia Caras was not mentioning technical obstacles, just an user issue. Actually, noone still claims that there is a technical issue with a larger set of TLD. This specific point seems settled and discussing it again brings no value. Even ICANN no longer mentions that FUD (of course, they never publically admitted that they were spreading FUD but that's ICANN, it's not a surprise). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 05:28:07 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:58:07 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080303102828.B3940E2C12@smtp3.electricembers.net> McTim First of all I must again clarify that this is not about writing a tech spec about CS, but understanding and negotiating boundaries as directly relate to effectiveness of a particular CS group - the IGC - to meet its goals and objectives. And this is a social-political realm where only that much clarity can be achieved, but the process of clarification cannot be given up... that's the point. Because if we altogether give up the process of thinking and some degree of clarification, and self-definition - we reach such meaningless (for me, and many others) positions like the one you and some others took during pre-consultations discussion that 'ICANN is CS'. Implying that ICANN as an institution is CS. Some others have the same position here or something close to it. (This present discussion of real people involved with multiple groups came after Avri posited here dilemma, and I tried to convince her that it is possible to sort that out if one is more or less clear about ones 'principal' political identity and position. The issue about individuals is different and really problematic mostly when the confusion extends to the identity of the 'institutions' as well. Otherwise it can be, and is already by many people and their groups, sorted out in a dynamic manner. I also gave examples of Avri herself tries to sort it out. So in this email I stick to the real problem issue - which is the real matter of difference.) Now, since I am not an academician who would be more worried about the long term consequences of such 'category mixing' as implied in 'ICANN is CS', I may still ignore it. But I know what it implied here in real terms. It implies, one way or the other, that CS has no real problems with ICANN+. So, pl understand that my problem is very real and practical. I think CS has a lot of issues with the way ICANN+ works, and needs to do a lot of advocacy work in this area, for which purpose it is elementary that it has to self-define itself vis a vis ICANN (and other Internet policy making bodies like the ITU, RIRs etc) And I am not just making up or being paranoid that 'ICANN is CS' converts into 'we have no or little problems with ICANN'. See Alex's reference to 'our real opponents' and Suresh's to 'common cause we are meeting together' for which we 'should not alienate every single other group which is favorable to our goals'. All these are clear pointers to some of us having our aims defined narrowly as being 'against governments' and having nothing to do with how ICANN + operates, or for that matter markets operate, or any other power wielding institution may operate. In my definition of our aims we have issues with governments, with business sector (the more organized business) and with these ICANN + organizations, and perhaps with some others. In the light of above, who do you think is taking a narrow view of CS (and its objectives) and who it taking a broader views. It is very easy to abuse language to ones advantage - and paint the other as exclusionary, and take the high moral ground of being inclusive, accommodative and all. So, it really is that you are not taking a board view, for if you were, in keeping with your magnanimous strategy, as we say 'ICANN is CS' we should be saying 'business sector is CS', 'govs are CS'. Why, lets take the inclusive game to its logical category. Would it not bug you guys if I kept saying - just leave the governments aside, don't antagonize them, they are on our side in reigning the excesses of, say, the markets.... lets not differentiate ourselves too much from them etc etc..... Or the same series for business sector, chiefly the corporate world....Similarly, the attitude of 'ICANN is CS', well, to keep to the symmetry of the argument, bugs me, and many others. Worse, and that my real problem, it greatly affects my chances of doing any meaningful work in seeking any structural improvements in the way the principal infrastructure of the emerging information society - the Internet - is governed. This above to assure you that I am not wasting all my time here in playing semantic games with you, nor do I have any inherent tendency to hate other people and groups. (And I hate the efforts to use such tactics of blaming other with such pettiness, when the contested issue is really political.) I am focusing on the work that I, and the groups I work with, have defined for us. Parminder PS: I am not running away from the analysis you seek about how individuals will negotiate boundaries - taking real examples. I will engage with it separately. But as I said, that's the not the real issue. When we speak about individuals-as-individuals by definition they are not individuals-as-representing-any-group's-position. That puts this issue in a very different league than considerations like whether 'ICANN is CS'. Now I know there are times the separation of these individuals from the policies and positions of an institution they work with may not be very clear. In that case, we may have to mutually discuss (though a lot can be left to the concerned individual) the degree of separation. I think issues like whether the individual can openly speak against, sign on and campaign against the known positions of that institution etc will be key factors. Such conflicts of interest, and I said a few times now, are already dynamically negotiated in many similar contexts, and they will continue to be so negotiated. Civil society groups also have at times taken positions about nominating members etc, and this will also continue to be done. > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one > cant > > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis a > vis > > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and be > with > > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. > > > So.....Avri, Wolfie, Adam, Jeanette and others who hold dual > memberships in MAG and IGC are ok in both camps because they aren't > central enough and/or the MAG doesn't set policy? > > But if the IGF did make policy (which you and others on this list seem > to want) then those dual folk wouldn't be "CS" in your book anymore? > (depending on "centrality" of course). > > I think we can both agree on the use of the word "absurd" here. > > > BTW I don't think > > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, > > right. > > I am perfectly happy having Bertrand, Raul/Veni (temporary gov folk in > WSIS) or anyone else, vote as long as they agree to the charter. > > In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member participating > > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with > ICANN > > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. > > I am curious to know what actions you plan, as coordinator of this > list, in regards to list participation by Thomas Narten and Wendy > Seltzer? Would you unsubscribe them? Moderate their posts in which > ICANN is mentioned? > > I have a haiku for that notion as well: > > Spartacus Youth League > Enhanced Cooperation > Neoliberal > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 3 05:35:41 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:05:41 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080303102828.B3940E2C12@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080303102828.B3940E2C12@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <00ac01c87d1a$55d8ea80$018abf80$@net> God, this is getting silly. Multiple people have pointed this out to you already - so just one last time Find people whose standpoints agree with broader CS goals. Work with them Keep broader CS goals in mind, not just narrow minded and blinkered dogmas I am reasonably sure those three are achievable goals, as several people here on this list seem to have achieved it and are very good indeed at it. suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 3:58 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG available > > > > McTim > > First of all I must again clarify that this is not about writing a tech > spec > about CS, but understanding and negotiating boundaries as directly > relate to > effectiveness of a particular CS group - the IGC - to meet its goals > and > objectives. And this is a social-political realm where only that much > clarity can be achieved, but the process of clarification cannot be > given > up... that's the point. > > Because if we altogether give up the process of thinking and some > degree of > clarification, and self-definition - we reach such meaningless (for me, > and > many others) positions like the one you and some others took during > pre-consultations discussion that 'ICANN is CS'. Implying that ICANN as > an > institution is CS. Some others have the same position here or something > close to it. > > (This present discussion of real people involved with multiple groups > came > after Avri posited here dilemma, and I tried to convince her that it is > possible to sort that out if one is more or less clear about ones > 'principal' political identity and position. The issue about > individuals is > different and really problematic mostly when the confusion extends to > the > identity of the 'institutions' as well. Otherwise it can be, and is > already > by many people and their groups, sorted out in a dynamic manner. I also > gave > examples of Avri herself tries to sort it out. So in this email I stick > to > the real problem issue - which is the real matter of difference.) > > Now, since I am not an academician who would be more worried about the > long > term consequences of such 'category mixing' as implied in 'ICANN is CS', > I > may still ignore it. But I know what it implied here in real terms. It > implies, one way or the other, that CS has no real problems with ICANN+. > So, > pl understand that my problem is very real and practical. I think CS > has a > lot of issues with the way ICANN+ works, and needs to do a lot of > advocacy > work in this area, for which purpose it is elementary that it has to > self-define itself vis a vis ICANN (and other Internet policy making > bodies > like the ITU, RIRs etc) > > And I am not just making up or being paranoid that 'ICANN is CS' > converts > into 'we have no or little problems with ICANN'. See Alex's reference > to > 'our real opponents' and Suresh's to 'common cause we are meeting > together' > for which we 'should not alienate every single other group which is > favorable to our goals'. > > All these are clear pointers to some of us having our aims defined > narrowly > as being 'against governments' and having nothing to do with how ICANN > + > operates, or for that matter markets operate, or any other power > wielding > institution may operate. > > In my definition of our aims we have issues with governments, with > business > sector (the more organized business) and with these ICANN + > organizations, > and perhaps with some others. > > In the light of above, who do you think is taking a narrow view of CS > (and > its objectives) and who it taking a broader views. It is very easy to > abuse > language to ones advantage - and paint the other as exclusionary, and > take > the high moral ground of being inclusive, accommodative and all. > > So, it really is that you are not taking a board view, for if you were, > in > keeping with your magnanimous strategy, as we say 'ICANN is CS' we > should be > saying 'business sector is CS', 'govs are CS'. Why, lets take the > inclusive > game to its logical category. > > Would it not bug you guys if I kept saying - just leave the governments > aside, don't antagonize them, they are on our side in reigning the > excesses > of, say, the markets.... lets not differentiate ourselves too much from > them > etc etc..... Or the same series for business sector, chiefly the > corporate > world....Similarly, the attitude of 'ICANN is CS', well, to keep to the > symmetry of the argument, bugs me, and many others. > > Worse, and that my real problem, it greatly affects my chances of doing > any > meaningful work in seeking any structural improvements in the way the > principal infrastructure of the emerging information society - the > Internet > - is governed. > > This above to assure you that I am not wasting all my time here in > playing > semantic games with you, nor do I have any inherent tendency to hate > other > people and groups. (And I hate the efforts to use such tactics of > blaming > other with such pettiness, when the contested issue is really > political.) I > am focusing on the work that I, and the groups I work with, have > defined for > us. > > Parminder > > PS: I am not running away from the analysis you seek about how > individuals > will negotiate boundaries - taking real examples. I will engage with it > separately. But as I said, that's the not the real issue. When we speak > about individuals-as-individuals by definition they are not > individuals-as-representing-any-group's-position. That puts this issue > in a > very different league than considerations like whether 'ICANN is CS'. > Now I > know there are times the separation of these individuals from the > policies > and positions of an institution they work with may not be very clear. > In > that case, we may have to mutually discuss (though a lot can be left to > the > concerned individual) the degree of separation. I think issues like > whether > the individual can openly speak against, sign on and campaign against > the > known positions of that institution etc will be key factors. Such > conflicts > of interest, and I said a few times now, are already dynamically > negotiated > in many similar contexts, and they will continue to be so negotiated. > Civil > society groups also have at times taken positions about nominating > members > etc, and this will also continue to be done. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Cc: Avri Doria > > Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG > > available > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Parminder > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes > one > > cant > > > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and > vis a > > vis > > > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, > and be > > with > > > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. > > > > > > So.....Avri, Wolfie, Adam, Jeanette and others who hold dual > > memberships in MAG and IGC are ok in both camps because they aren't > > central enough and/or the MAG doesn't set policy? > > > > But if the IGF did make policy (which you and others on this list > seem > > to want) then those dual folk wouldn't be "CS" in your book anymore? > > (depending on "centrality" of course). > > > > I think we can both agree on the use of the word "absurd" here. > > > > > > BTW I don't think > > > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions > here, > > > right. > > > > I am perfectly happy having Bertrand, Raul/Veni (temporary gov folk > in > > WSIS) or anyone else, vote as long as they agree to the charter. > > > > In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member participating > > > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do > with > > ICANN > > > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. > > > > I am curious to know what actions you plan, as coordinator of this > > list, in regards to list participation by Thomas Narten and Wendy > > Seltzer? Would you unsubscribe them? Moderate their posts in which > > ICANN is mentioned? > > > > I have a haiku for that notion as well: > > > > Spartacus Youth League > > Enhanced Cooperation > > Neoliberal > > > > -- > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Mar 3 05:54:45 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:54:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work Message-ID: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> There have been recently on this list a long discussion about IPv6 design and deployment, with questions about the requirments that were used during the IPv6 design. Now, IPv6 is an old story, the protocol is designed and implemented and I don't think it is a good idea to rediscuss it again, specially from people who have no idea of the engineering issues which were at stake at this time. But it does not mean that user input is not important for the design of a technical architecture. If IPv6 is done, the next generation of Internet architecture is currently under design and it is still time to influence it. The requirments for it are, basically, everything that was left out of IPv6, specially the question of the routing table growth and management. They are discussed in RFC 4984 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4984.txt), which is a report on a very interesting workshop about routing and addressing. Most of the proposed solutions involve the meme of "separation between the identifier and the locator", described in sections 2.2, 6 and 7.2 of the RFC. Now, these questions are policy questions, too. As the RFC 4984 says very well: The workshop participants noted that there exist different classes of stakeholders in the Internet community who view today's global routing system from different angles, and assign different priorities to different aspects of the problem set. The prioritized problem statement in this section is the consensus of the participants in this workshop, representing primarily large network operators and a few router vendors. It is likely that a different group of participants would produce a different list, or with different priorities. For example, freedom to change providers without renumbering might make the top of the priority list assembled by a workshop of end users and enterprise network operators. So, it seems there is room for policy shaping here. The problem is that there is currently no channel for user input to reach the IETF (and it is not easy to build such a channel, for various reasons, one of them being the necessity to bar access to various trolls which will propose snake-oil stuff like chinese IPv9 and so on). Fora like the IGF never discuss practical things, focusing instead on politician matters like the number of seats in a board. This is the challenge that CS should now take. Otherwise, the Internet will be ruled by the big and wealthy companies. A recent Internet-draft on the design process of the new architecture (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-burness-locid-evaluate) says it quite bluntly: Key players must not be disadvantaged, or they may try to obstruct standards or restrict deployment. A specific aspect of this to highlight is how network providers today use policy control. Providers are unlikely to support any scheme which make policy management more difficult that today. They are likely to require the ability to check that routes are as diverse as possible, to chose routes based on cost and performance and to avoid routes leaving or entering a specific country or domain. A vision which one can see as extremely candid or extremely cynical... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 06:56:31 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:56:31 -0300 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <76d101c87d00$2e7ec0f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <76d101c87d00$2e7ec0f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47CBE76F.1020101@rits.org.br> Grande Ian, I understand the proper worry about broadness of certain statements, but the ICANN board is itself a good example of diversity. There are the ones who still believe nothing should fundamentally change in the organization -- particularly things that dislike the USA government --, there are others who strongly disagree, there are the ones who are just looking for a place in the sun and will go along the dominant current (some very dedicated to their changing cause), and there are reps of the different stakeholder groups. So an ICANN boad member may be anything, actually, in our caucus debate, political filtering in their selection process notwithstanding. (So is the GNSO, for that matter, which is also a plus for ICANN). This is actually good for ICANN, which, despite all restrictions and controls, has been providing an increasing degree of transparency rarely seen in similar bodies (national or international). This diversity is quite healthy in our list. However, this is a civil society IG caucus, originated from a group of civil society organizations' members who identified the need to discuss, formulate and advocate proposals capturing the vision of civil society on issues -- not a light challenge! So, from the beginning, in the crucial issues in the process started with WSIS, we have been striving to formulate CS consensus positions -- this is the function of this caucus, this is not a Latin American academy of literature with very old writers sipping tea and just discussing for the sake of discussion and killing time, energy permitting. The latest effort, with some difficulty, was met with success: the three statements presented by the IG caucus in the open consultations in Geneva. But this is not the first time we do this, of course, or the caucus would be dead a long time ago. We had crucial participation in the formulation of the Tunis statements, we were relevant in the very approval of the IGF concept (furiously opposed by the USA and some other governments), and so on. This is because we don't just sit sipping tea and throwing diatribes against each other. Although this is a diverse space, and some people will continue to do so -- fine, this is also a democratic space and must be preserved as such. frt rgds --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: >> Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally >> involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular branch >> of CS is engaging on advocacy) > > I disagree, Parminder (and strongly!) > > There may be occasions when people have to declare conflicts of interest, or > announce withdrawal from discussion on a particular issue, but the above > statement is far too broad (or the wording far too loose) > > I see no reason why an ICANN board member, past or present, can't consider > themselves part of civil society and participate here. Same with all > Internet governance bodies and Internet related organizations. They are all > struggling with the evolution of the Internet as much as we are, and may be > positively influenced by "us" as much as we might positively be influenced > by "them". > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: 03 March 2008 18:07 >> To: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Cc: 'Avri Doria' >> Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG >> available >> >> >> Alejandro >> >>> no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths >>> teachers proud. >> Please stick to discussing the issue. Avoid unnecessary sarcasm, just >> because the other side is being polite. For you must know by this time >> that >> I am not such a wimp at these games when it comes to that. So please mind >> the style and language you are using, or you may have to regret it. >> >> (Your last email was sarcastic enough - "Parminder, thanks for the rich >> supply of QED", but I ignored the sarcasm. But now I take it that if I >> don't >> say something to the above effect you will just carry on with your >> unpleasant ways.) >> >> Ok, now about the issues. >> >>> This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those >>> you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are. >> Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally >> involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular >> branch >> of CS is engaging on advocacy) >> >> Same with government. Not an issue of disliking. I have got many great >> friends in the government, and am very appreciative of their work. Many >> have >> my much higher respect than many CS persons. Same with people involved >> (centrally) with IG policy making bodies. But sitting and voting as CS, >> NO. >> (QED :)) >> >>> and that you >>> don't care for any understanding they may provide. >> Two issues here. I am relatively clearer about the categories and people I >> am speaking about. But you are deliberately vague. I cannot answer about a >> 'they' without knowing who is this 'they'. So why don't who also clarify, >> as >> you agree I am doing, when you use these terms. So, specifically, who is >> this 'they' you refer to in this statement. I cant answer without knowing >> that. >> >> Second, I can still say I care very much for any understanding anyone can >> provide. Why does one has to be able to call oneself CS and vote as CS to >> give me understanding... I take 'understanding' from anyone and from all. >> >>> Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion >>> took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG >> meeting. >> >> I had a lots of 'colors of opinion' participating - in fact some which did >> not participate earlier. But these colors don't look like colors to you, >> and >> only one particular color is color to you. That's not my problem. >> >>> And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of >>> emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real >>> opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for >>> yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." >> 'real opponents of civil society' :). And you keep accusing me of dishing >> out QEDs. >> >> Anyway, please tell me, if you can discuss these issues openly, who are >> these 'real opponents'. If we identify them we can fight them together. >> >> Sorry to say that, it is you have a narrow vision of what is CS, who are >> real opponents of CS, what should be CS be doing... I have much much >> broader >> vision, and as does CS in general. >> >> "real opponents of CS' keep changing - -ask the CS involved in WTO and >> WIPO >> who are real opponents of CS'. You may be surprised. Or ask consumer right >> groups, or environmental groups.... Try whispering in their ears, lets >> only >> take care of the 'real opponents of CS'(as defined by you). >> >> All the issues implicated in all the above fora are important issues for >> IG >> as well. So please can we go beyond your identified 'real opponents of CS' >> and do some other work as well, which some others may feel as or, at >> times, >> even more important. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: My email which you characterized as part of weekened QEDs was sent in >> a >> bright sunny Monday morning in Bangalore. But that's a minor detail. >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] >>> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:36 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>> Cc: 'Avri Doria' >>> Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF >> MAG >>> available >>> >>> Parminder, >>> >>> no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths >>> teachers proud. >>> >>> This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those >>> you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are, and that you >>> don't care for any understanding they may provide - and establishing the >>> IGC first, and the IGF as a consequence, as an "in absentia" tribunal >> for >>> them. >>> >>> Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion >>> took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG >> meeting. >>> And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of >>> emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real >>> opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for >>> yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." >>> >>> >>> Alejandro Pisanty >>> >>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> . >>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >>> >>> *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >>> *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >>> *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>> >>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org >>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org >>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> . >>> . >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530 >>>> From: Parminder >>>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder >>> >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' >>>> Subject: RE: "bridge", >>>> was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. >> I >>>> agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious >>>>>> that >>>>>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential >> condition. >>>>> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting >>>>> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or >>>>> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for >> those >>>>> who require purity of belief and origin. >>>> >>>> >>>> There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some >>> amount >>>> of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty >>> oath or >>>> passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will >> only >>>> defend what I asked for. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as a >>>> sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some >>> level >>>> of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state >> and >>>> market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, >> and >>> so >>>> on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but one >>> cant >>>> take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That >>> will >>>> not allow CS to be effective at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self >>>> self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS >>> group. >>>> Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with the >>> WSIS >>>> plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - >>> gender, >>>> development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous >>> communities >>>> and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite >> well >>> - >>>> see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some >> extent >>> IGC >>>> was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG >>>> processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of >>> obvious >>>> self-definitions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about >> exclusions >>>> from the IS >>>> >>>> - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in >>>> society, about human rights, about disability rights, >>>> >>>> - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and >> spaces >>> by >>>> state's power >>>> >>>> - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect >> on >>>> social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social >> and >>>> economic justice >>>> >>>> - many other such things. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are >>> generally >>>> the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each group >>> will >>>> further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged >>>> communities, others towards consumer rights and such. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think this was a good thing, though >>>>> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do >> a >>>>> quick call at the end. >>>> >>>> >>>> Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for >> thorough >>>> discussion before positions are adopted. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> What troubles me is >>>>> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear >>>>> belonging to any to group >>>> >>>> >>>> Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating >> it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> or that those who do belong to other groups >>>>> are somehow suspect. >>>> >>>> >>>> None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one >>> cant >>>> have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis >> a >>> vis >>>> whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and >> be >>> with >>>> that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't >>> think >>>> you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here, >>>> right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member >>> participating >>>> in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with >>> ICANN >>>> policy. I think it is simple and obvious. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In >>>> >>>>> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the >>>>> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people >>>>> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those >>>>> recmmened by civil society players. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public >>> interest >>>> player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double vote >>> when >>>> they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through >> market >>>> power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this >>> position >>>> for the present purposes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think within each of those >>>> >>>>> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple >>>>> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro >>>>> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro >>>>> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the >>>>> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and >>>>> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an >>>>> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for >> us >>>>> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z >>>>> positions to AC. >>>> >>>> >>>> Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this >>> issue >>>> of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I still >>> can't >>>> understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the >>> problem >>>> comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the >>> meaning of >>>> a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they >>> should >>>> be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be >>> identified >>>> as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy >>> making >>>> process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities >>> makes >>>> CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical community >>> as in >>>> people with special technical expertise - as per their political >>> persuasions >>>> (you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on >>> Internet >>>> censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe >>>>> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will >>>>> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people >>>>> have an association and on their relevant expertise. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their >> experience, >>>> expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone >>> ICANN >>>> wants as their reps.... And we all know that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> in a consensus environment it is not the >>>>> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. >>>> >>>> >>>> While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues when >> we >>> are >>>> looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under >>>> consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when >>>> discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness of >>> voice >>>> matters too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think >>>> >>>>> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement >> we >>>>> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have >>>>> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be times >>> when >>>> we see greater consensus for a larger step up process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM >>>>> To: Governance Caucus >>>>> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF >>> MAG >>>>> available >>>>> On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: >>>>>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious >>>>>> that >>>>>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential >> condition. >>>>> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting >>>>> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or >>>>> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for >> those >>>>> who require purity of belief and origin. >>>>>> And >>>>>> also to have a set of broad common political positions. >>>>> In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with >>>>> you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the >> views >>>>> put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though >>>>> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do >> a >>>>> quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate >>>>> positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me >> is >>>>> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear >>>>> belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups >>>>> are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we >>>>> recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of >>>>> litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we >>>>> believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions >>>>> while acting in their individual capacities. >>>>>> In fact at the time >>>>>> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying >>>>>> basic >>>>>> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. >>>>> True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't >> is >>>>> that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think >>>>> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement >> we >>>>> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have >>>>> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. >>>>> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the >>>>> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In >>>>> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the >>>>> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people >>>>> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those >>>>> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those >>>>> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple >>>>> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro >>>>> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro >>>>> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the >>>>> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and >>>>> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an >>>>> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for >> us >>>>> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z >>>>> positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not >> believe >>>>> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will >>>>> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people >>>>> have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that >>>>> is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to >>>>> the UNSG's office.. >>>>> I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group >>>>> of people who they think can represent their views and who they think >>>>> can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in >> another >>>>> context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for >>>>> my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the >>>>> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice. >>>>> 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 >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: >> 02/03/2008 15:59 >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: 02/03/2008 > 15:59 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 07:10:31 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:10:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAID StratCouncil and Forum, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,18 - 20 May 2008 Message-ID: <200803031209.m23C9TJg028110@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is a brief up date of the preparations to the next meetings of the GAID Strategy Council meeting and its Annual Forum to take place on 18-20 May 2008 in Kuala Lumpur. As you noticed, the 6 substantive sessions of the annual Forum, taking place in conjunction with the WCIT 2008, will focus on the two themes of Access and Connectivity and Innovative Funding for ICT4D (the tentative sub-themes of the substantive panels are indicated in the attached preliminary program). Two experts groups started to work on line on those two issues; draft outlines and concept papers will be circulated shortly – it would be possible to provide comments at that stage. It is expected that the Access and connectivity cluster would feed into the ITU Summit on Connect Asia, while the ICT4D Funding cluster would feed into the Follow up Conference on Financing for Development (Doha, 29 November - 2 December 2008). Other issues: - In the follow up to the GAID Forum on Youth and ICTs (September 2007, Geneva), note that a Committee of e-Leaders for ICT and Youth might be established within GAID. More information coming soon, but some of the listserv members might be interested by this initiative. - The renewed list of GAID structure membership is going to be circulated in a few days. The new membership has been proposed after extensive consultations to the UN SG and is now on his table for approval. Best, Ph _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi, 20. février 2008 17:27 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: [gaid-discuss] Please save the date:UNDESA-GAID, Annual Meeting, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,18 - 20 May 2008 Dear all, Find below a recent message from the GAID Secretariat regarding the preparations of the next GAID Global Forum on Access and Connectivity; and innovative Funding Mechanism, to be organised in conjunction with the next meetings of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee (18-20 May 2008). This will also be held in conjunction with the 2008 World Congress on Information Technology. Preparations are under way on the basis of the outcomes of the September 2007 Steering Committee meeting (summary available here ). Note that the designation by the UN Secretary General of the new membership of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee will be announced shortly and that this new membership after rotation will take office in April 2008. Bets regards, Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _____ De : discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org] De la part de Sarbuland Khan Envoyi : jeudi, 14. fivrier 2008 22:37 @ : discuss at un-gaid.org Objet : [gaid-discuss] Please save the date: UNDESA-GAID, Annual Meeting, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 18 ? 20 May 2008 Dear Colleageues, The Global Alliance for ICT and Development of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA-GAID) is a global multi-stakeholder partnership programme, with the objective to mobilize the human, financial and technical resources required to bridge major gaps in information and communication technology (ICT), infrastructure, services and applications across the world. The UNDESA-GAID Annual Meeting, to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 18 – 20 May, 2008, aims to bring together partners to help implement a number of ICT projects of significant, catalyzing impact on the development of ICT, infrastructure, services and applications. This year’s Annual Meeting will also focus on issues of access and connectivity, particularly for the Asian and Island States, as well as the innovative funding mechanism for the implementation of ICT, infrastructure, services and applications. Global Forum on Access and Connectivity; and innovative Funding Mechanism The UNDESA-GAID Annual Meeting will bring together the International Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and GAID, in partnership with the Islamic Development Bank, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and experts from civil societies, academia and other regional and international organizations. This collaborative effort seeks to involve various stakeholders active in the region, with the aim of supporting affordable connectivity, applications and services to stimulate economic growth, employment and development throughout the region. By having this meeting, partners will build on the progress of countries, which have established an attractive ICT policy and regulatory environment to accommodate the private sector investment required for sustainable network build-out, capacity roll-out and business innovations. These projects will, in turn, trigger a cycle of further investment and development. The Global Forum on Access and Connectivity; and Innovative Funding Mechanism will have a practical, results-oriented format, including interactive, multi-stakeholder panel discussions, partnership announcements, as well as opportunities for participants to showcase their ICT development projects to potential partners and donors. The Forum will also provide an excellent networking platform for leaders from the public, private and financial sectors to meet and forge new partnerships for the future. Participants at the Forum will examine key success factors for ICT investment and development and identify areas for collaboration to: 7 expand broadband backbone infrastructure and access networks, using innovative business and financing models, such as infrastructure-sharing and demand aggregation among local and regional institutions. This new infrastructure investment includes national and regional interconnectivity initiatives, such as Internet exchange points and rural connectivity projects; 7 enhance workforce training to support employment and growth in the ICT sector and the overall economy; 7 stimulate the development of locally-relevant ICT content, applications and services; and 7 broaden efforts to develop an enabling policy and regulatory environment for investment, including harmonization across regions and sub-regions. New and refurbished PCs There will also be a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, which will address the initiative being developed under the GAID umbrella of providing 500,000 new and refurbished computers for 10,000 schools, catering for 35 million students by the year 2012. At the recent International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada, GAID and CES jointly organized the Technology and Emerging Countries Brainstorming dialogue. We noted that there was tremendous goodwill and willingness to collaborate from all parties present. The supplying parties agreed and were willing to work with the United Nations, through GAID, in a coordinated fashion, to scale up the supply of new and refurbished computers and ensure that the targets are reached. The demand side representatives responded and reiterated their willingness and desire to accept the computers. They agreed to work out the details and to put in place a structure and framework that is consistent in the receiving end at their respective countries. A concept note is currently being prepared and will be presented to the Strategy Council and Steering Committee of the GAID in Kuala Lumpur. It is expected that a pilot project with a committed multi-stakeholder approach will be developed and be rolled out in the four pilot countries before the end of 2008. Private-Public Partnership Recognizing the significance of the private-public partnership in the areas of ICT, we are pleased to inform you that Malaysia, representing the Asian continent, will also host the 2008 World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT) during that period in Kuala Lumpur. These two meetings, the United Nations Annual GAID Meeting and the WCIT Meeting will bring the possibility of Member States interacting with more than 70 information technology (IT) industry associations that represent over 90 PER CENT Of the world's IT market, together with civil societies, academia and other experts that will provide the crucial cross-cutting and partnership link between ICT, business, policy and society, and discussing and influencing global challenges, such as healthcare, education, digital divide, privacy and security. The Kuala Lumpur meeting will hear from some of today’s greatest minds on how ICT can be used to enable businesses by enhancing competitiveness, enrich economies by enhancing capacity to create and adopt new technologies, and particularly, to empower societies via access to information and knowledge acquisition. At the Kuala Lumpur meeting, we are inviting all Flagship Partnership Initiatives (FPIs) and Communities Of Expertise (COEs) to showcase and share their activities, plans and best practices with all other FPIs, COEs, High-level Panel of Advisors, Champions Network, Regional Networks, the Strategy Council and the Steering Committee members. You are invited to bring your literatures, brochures and other relevant materials to be distributed during the meetings. The High-level Panel of Advisors and the Regional Networks are also invited to undertake preparatory online discussions and bring their respective and regional perspectives to the discussions in Kuala Lumpur. Please find attached the tentative programme for the Annual GAID Meeting in Kuala Lumpur. We look forward to your personal commitment and active participation at the meetings. Kindly refer to our website, http://www.un-gaid.org, for more information pertaining to the meetings. With my best regards, Sincerely, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAID-KL-2008.doc Type: application/msword Size: 79360 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Mar 3 07:09:57 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:09:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> Message-ID: <47CBEA95.4070900@rits.org.br> A question for the ones engaged in this interesting thread: is there an Internet space (a Web site or similar) which is trying to consolidate and report regularly on the progress of IPv4->IPv6 transition? I know there are real tests being done in several countries, in large networks, and occasional ones, all bringing interesting conclusions (and best practices), but I have so far not found a space which gives us a vision of the whole process -- in my view, a great need for the ones preparing to (or fearing to) "migrate". Please note I am not talking about inner techie spaces, but something a journalist or a decision-maker (who is not a network techie) can read and understand. There is the IPv6 European Task Force portal (www.ipv6tf.org) which does something along the lines I am talking about. Is this *the* site people should be visiting? frt rgds --c.a. Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > There have been recently on this list a long discussion about IPv6 > design and deployment, with questions about the requirments that were > used during the IPv6 design. > > Now, IPv6 is an old story, the protocol is designed and implemented > and I don't think it is a good idea to rediscuss it again, specially > from people who have no idea of the engineering issues which were at > stake at this time. > > But it does not mean that user input is not important for the design > of a technical architecture. If IPv6 is done, the next generation of > Internet architecture is currently under design and it is still time > to influence it. The requirments for it are, basically, everything > that was left out of IPv6, specially the question of the routing table > growth and management. They are discussed in RFC 4984 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4984.txt), which is a report on a very > interesting workshop about routing and addressing. > > Most of the proposed solutions involve the meme of "separation between > the identifier and the locator", described in sections 2.2, 6 and 7.2 > of the RFC. > > Now, these questions are policy questions, too. As the RFC 4984 says > very well: > > The workshop participants noted that there exist different classes of > stakeholders in the Internet community who view today's global > routing system from different angles, and assign different priorities > to different aspects of the problem set. The prioritized problem > statement in this section is the consensus of the participants in > this workshop, representing primarily large network operators and a > few router vendors. It is likely that a different group of > participants would produce a different list, or with different > priorities. For example, freedom to change providers without > renumbering might make the top of the priority list assembled by a > workshop of end users and enterprise network operators. > > So, it seems there is room for policy shaping here. The problem is > that there is currently no channel for user input to reach the IETF > (and it is not easy to build such a channel, for various reasons, one > of them being the necessity to bar access to various trolls which will > propose snake-oil stuff like chinese IPv9 and so on). Fora like the > IGF never discuss practical things, focusing instead on politician > matters like the number of seats in a board. This is the challenge > that CS should now take. > > Otherwise, the Internet will be ruled by the big and wealthy > companies. A recent Internet-draft on the design process of the new > architecture (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-burness-locid-evaluate) > says it quite bluntly: > > Key players must not be disadvantaged, or they may try to obstruct > standards or restrict deployment. A specific aspect of this to > highlight is how network providers today use policy control. > Providers are unlikely to support any scheme which make policy > management more difficult that today. They are likely to require > the ability to check that routes are as diverse as possible, to > chose routes based on cost and performance and to avoid routes > leaving or entering a specific country or domain. > > A vision which one can see as extremely candid or extremely cynical... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 07:23:20 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:23:20 -0800 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <47CBE76F.1020101@rits.org.br> References: <76d101c87d00$2e7ec0f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47CBE76F.1020101@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080303122320.GB31622@hserus.net> Carlos Afonso [03/03/08 08:56 -0300]: > positions -- this is the function of this caucus, this is not a Latin > American academy of literature with very old writers sipping tea and just > discussing for the sake of discussion and killing time, energy permitting. Let's say, sen�r, that there is a class of intellectuals who talk and sip tea. And another class of intellectuals who talk, sip tea and still manage to distil the talk (and the tea / tequila) into burning, vivid words instead of turgid post modernist drivel. The phrase �ou're probably looking for is "creative productivity" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 07:31:14 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:01:14 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <76d101c87d00$2e7ec0f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080303123124.7C7A3A6C26@smtp2.electricembers.net> Ian > >Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally > >involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular > branch > >of CS is engaging on advocacy) > > I disagree, Parminder (and strongly!) I like people doing things 'strongly' :) > > There may be occasions when people have to declare conflicts of interest, > or > announce withdrawal from discussion on a particular issue, but the above > statement is far too broad (or the wording far too loose) > > I see no reason why an ICANN board member, past or present, can't consider > themselves part of civil society and participate here. I am not sure what participation means here. Just being on this list and discussing matters, sure, no problems. I know some people with the governments are there on this list. We often benefit from their perspectives and knowledge. But do you mean actively participating in developing and voting on caucus statements and positions. I cant agree. Not for government people ( centrally associated in their govs in same area as we work in), not for a full ICANN serving board member and such. A CS liaison to gov is fine, so for ICANN. And all ex. position holders are of course just whatever they chose to be. In my viewpoint the defining principle (and the person herself should mostly do this definition) is that whether a institution affiliated person can openly speak, sign and campaign etc against what may be the institutions official policy on any matter... the conflict of interest here is obvious. I have clarified in my email to McTim, I am not trying to be mean here. A vote or two this way or that will not make any difference, and all of these are of course well-meaning people with often shared objectives..... My problem is that this free-float of CS is everyone in this particular case is used to take ICANN itself as CS, and by implication, to mean that CS has no problem whatsoever with ICANN... (and you made that important point that Internet admin bodies shd be identified for what they are) > Same with all > Internet governance bodies and Internet related organizations. They are > all > struggling with the evolution of the Internet as much as we are, and may > be > positively influenced by "us" as much as we might positively be influenced > by "them". Are not many governments struggling with the evolution of the Internet as well. Or many big corporations. Would you allow their central leadership position people - or those who are expressly supposed to represent their institutions' policy positions - to be making CS positions at the same time and voting on them. Parminder > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: 03 March 2008 18:07 > > To: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG > > available > > > > > > Alejandro > > > > > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your > maths > > > teachers proud. > > > > Please stick to discussing the issue. Avoid unnecessary sarcasm, just > > because the other side is being polite. For you must know by this time > > that > > I am not such a wimp at these games when it comes to that. So please > mind > > the style and language you are using, or you may have to regret it. > > > > (Your last email was sarcastic enough - "Parminder, thanks for the rich > > supply of QED", but I ignored the sarcasm. But now I take it that if I > > don't > > say something to the above effect you will just carry on with your > > unpleasant ways.) > > > > Ok, now about the issues. > > > > > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating > those > > > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are. > > > > Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally > > involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular > > branch > > of CS is engaging on advocacy) > > > > Same with government. Not an issue of disliking. I have got many great > > friends in the government, and am very appreciative of their work. Many > > have > > my much higher respect than many CS persons. Same with people involved > > (centrally) with IG policy making bodies. But sitting and voting as CS, > > NO. > > (QED :)) > > > > >and that you > > > don't care for any understanding they may provide. > > > > Two issues here. I am relatively clearer about the categories and people > I > > am speaking about. But you are deliberately vague. I cannot answer about > a > > 'they' without knowing who is this 'they'. So why don't who also > clarify, > > as > > you agree I am doing, when you use these terms. So, specifically, who is > > this 'they' you refer to in this statement. I cant answer without > knowing > > that. > > > > Second, I can still say I care very much for any understanding anyone > can > > provide. Why does one has to be able to call oneself CS and vote as CS > to > > give me understanding... I take 'understanding' from anyone and from > all. > > > > > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > > > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG > > meeting. > > > > I had a lots of 'colors of opinion' participating - in fact some which > did > > not participate earlier. But these colors don't look like colors to you, > > and > > only one particular color is color to you. That's not my problem. > > > > > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds > of > > > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the > real > > > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge > for > > > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." > > > > 'real opponents of civil society' :). And you keep accusing me of > dishing > > out QEDs. > > > > Anyway, please tell me, if you can discuss these issues openly, who are > > these 'real opponents'. If we identify them we can fight them together. > > > > Sorry to say that, it is you have a narrow vision of what is CS, who are > > real opponents of CS, what should be CS be doing... I have much much > > broader > > vision, and as does CS in general. > > > > "real opponents of CS' keep changing - -ask the CS involved in WTO and > > WIPO > > who are real opponents of CS'. You may be surprised. Or ask consumer > right > > groups, or environmental groups.... Try whispering in their ears, lets > > only > > take care of the 'real opponents of CS'(as defined by you). > > > > All the issues implicated in all the above fora are important issues for > > IG > > as well. So please can we go beyond your identified 'real opponents of > CS' > > and do some other work as well, which some others may feel as or, at > > times, > > even more important. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: My email which you characterized as part of weekened QEDs was sent > in > > a > > bright sunny Monday morning in Bangalore. But that's a minor detail. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:36 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > > Cc: 'Avri Doria' > > > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > > MAG > > > available > > > > > > Parminder, > > > > > > no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your > maths > > > teachers proud. > > > > > > This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating > those > > > you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are, and that you > > > don't care for any understanding they may provide - and establishing > the > > > IGC first, and the IGF as a consequence, as an "in absentia" tribunal > > for > > > them. > > > > > > Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion > > > took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG > > meeting. > > > > > > And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds > of > > > emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the > real > > > opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge > for > > > yourself my mention of "fruitlessness." > > > > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > > . > > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > > > > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org > > > Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > . > > > . > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530 > > > > From: Parminder > > > > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder > > > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' > > > > Subject: RE: "bridge", > > > > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue > forward. > > I > > > > agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is > obvious > > > > > > > >>> that > > > > > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential > > condition. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and > supporting > > > > > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath > or > > > > > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for > > those > > > > > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some > > > amount > > > > of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty > > > oath or > > > > passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will > > only > > > > defend what I asked for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as > a > > > > sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some > > > level > > > > of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state > > and > > > > market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, > > and > > > so > > > > on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but > one > > > cant > > > > take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. > That > > > will > > > > not allow CS to be effective at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self > > > > self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS > > > group. > > > > Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with > the > > > WSIS > > > > plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - > > > gender, > > > > development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous > > > communities > > > > and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite > > well > > > - > > > > see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some > > extent > > > IGC > > > > was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's > IG > > > > processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of > > > obvious > > > > self-definitions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about > > exclusions > > > > from the IS > > > > > > > > - we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in > > > > society, about human rights, about disability rights, > > > > > > > > - we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and > > spaces > > > by > > > > state's power > > > > > > > > - we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect > > on > > > > social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social > > and > > > > economic justice > > > > > > > > - many other such things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are > > > generally > > > > the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each > group > > > will > > > > further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged > > > > communities, others towards consumer rights and such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think this was a good thing, though > > > > > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to > do > > a > > > > > > > >> quick call at the end. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for > > thorough > > > > discussion before positions are adopted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What troubles me is > > > > > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > > > > > >> belonging to any to group > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> or that those who do belong to other groups > > > > > > > >> are somehow suspect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes > one > > > cant > > > > have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and > vis > > a > > > vis > > > > whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and > > be > > > with > > > > that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't > > > think > > > > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions > here, > > > > right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member > > > participating > > > > in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with > > > ICANN > > > > policy. I think it is simple and obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of > the > > > > > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > > > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > > > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public > > > interest > > > > player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double > vote > > > when > > > > they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through > > market > > > > power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this > > > position > > > > for the present purposes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think within each of those > > > > > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > > > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > > > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as > pro > > > > > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for > the > > > > > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... > and > > > > > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > > > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for > > us > > > > > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and > z > > > > > > > >> positions to AC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this > > > issue > > > > of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I > still > > > can't > > > > understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the > > > problem > > > > comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the > > > meaning of > > > > a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they > > > should > > > > be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be > > > identified > > > > as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy > > > making > > > > process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities > > > makes > > > > CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical > community > > > as in > > > > people with special technical expertise - as per their political > > > persuasions > > > > (you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on > > > Internet > > > > censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe > > > > > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names > will > > > > > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > > > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their > > experience, > > > > expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone > > > ICANN > > > > wants as their reps.... And we all know that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in a consensus environment it is not the > > > > > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the > voice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues > when > > we > > > are > > > > looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under > > > > consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when > > > > discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness > of > > > voice > > > > matters too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think > > > > > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement > > we > > > > > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who > have > > > > > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be > times > > > when > > > > we see greater consensus for a larger step up process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > > > > > > >> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM > > > > > > > >> To: Governance Caucus > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of > IGF > > > MAG > > > > > > > >> available > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is > obvious > > > > > > > >>> that > > > > > > > >>> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential > > condition. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and > supporting > > > > > > > >> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath > or > > > > > > > >> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for > > those > > > > > > > >> who require purity of belief and origin. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> And > > > > > > > >>> also to have a set of broad common political positions. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree > with > > > > > > > >> you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the > > views > > > > > > > >> put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, > though > > > > > > > >> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to > do > > a > > > > > > > >> quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate > > > > > > > >> positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me > > is > > > > > > > >> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear > > > > > > > >> belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other > groups > > > > > > > >> are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we > > > > > > > >> recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of > > > > > > > >> litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we > > > > > > > >> believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political > positions > > > > > > > >> while acting in their individual capacities. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> In fact at the time > > > > > > > >>> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying > > > > > > > >>> basic > > > > > > > >>> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't > > is > > > > > > > >> that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think > > > > > > > >> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement > > we > > > > > > > >> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who > have > > > > > > > >> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the > > > > > > > >> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In > > > > > > > >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of > the > > > > > > > >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people > > > > > > > >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those > > > > > > > >> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those > > > > > > > >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple > > > > > > > >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro > > > > > > > >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as > pro > > > > > > > >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for > the > > > > > > > >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... > and > > > > > > > >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an > > > > > > > >> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for > > us > > > > > > > >> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and > z > > > > > > > >> positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not > > believe > > > > > > > >> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names > will > > > > > > > >> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people > > > > > > > >> have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course > that > > > > > > > >> is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get > to > > > > > > > >> the UNSG's office.. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse > group > > > > > > > >> of people who they think can represent their views and who they > think > > > > > > > >> can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in > > another > > > > > > > >> context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation > for > > > > > > > >> my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the > > > > > > > >> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the > voice. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 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 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: > > 02/03/2008 15:59 > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: > 02/03/2008 > 15:59 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pr+governance at x0.dk Mon Mar 3 07:32:38 2008 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:32:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <47CBEA95.4070900@rits.org.br> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> <47CBEA95.4070900@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> Carlos Afonso (ca) writes: > A question for the ones engaged in this interesting thread: is there an > Internet space (a Web site or similar) which is trying to consolidate and > report regularly on the progress of IPv4->IPv6 transition? I know there are > real tests being done in several countries, in large networks, and > occasional ones, all bringing interesting conclusions (and best practices), > but I have so far not found a space which gives us a vision of the whole > process -- in my view, a great need for the ones preparing to (or fearing > to) "migrate". > > Please note I am not talking about inner techie spaces, but something a > journalist or a decision-maker (who is not a network techie) can read and > understand. There is the IPv6 European Task Force portal (www.ipv6tf.org) > which does something along the lines I am talking about. Is this *the* site > people should be visiting? There is no single site. There is no single transition. There, is fact, no real transition to speak of. IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist for a long time, as they are two different network protocols on the wire. How far is the transition ? To answer that question you'd have to actually be able to measure the amount of readyness of every internet- IPv4 connected organisation out there, with regards to IPv6. This means: - applications - clients - networks (that's very much simplified). If you want to get started, you're still stuck with reading what are mostly technical resources such as: http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 07:51:55 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:51:55 +0100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080303102828.B3940E2C12@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080303102828.B3940E2C12@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0935D155-DC1E-4A45-AF4E-FA9DA54FC4D6@psg.com> On 3 Mar 2008, at 11:28, Parminder wrote: > 'ICANN is CS' well they are a non profit NGO. and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS. so however we define them, or even how they define themselves, know that others defined them, and ISOC, and the RIRs and many of the non profit ccTLD organizations or root server organizations as CS (not sure what the ITU in WSIS with all of these entities). they may not be IGC as we define it, since IGC seems to be individuals not organizations it probably doesn't matter, but we cannot unilaterally declare them to not be CS. well we can, but it might both moot and pyrrhic. 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 Mon Mar 3 07:55:38 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:55:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> Message-ID: <2C3CB7F8-6F11-41BD-8D40-2D3F9E7B63BE@psg.com> On 3 Mar 2008, at 11:54, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > So, it seems there is room for policy shaping here. The problem is > that there is currently no channel for user input to reach the IETF > (and it is not easy to build such a channel, for various reasons, one > of them being the necessity to bar access to various trolls which will > propose snake-oil stuff like chinese IPv9 and so on). Well there is a channel; Internet-drafts (ID). And I believe that a well written, well thought out ID that spoke of the user requirements, and which created by a group of non-trolls, could get a fair hearing. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Mar 3 08:08:29 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:08:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> <47CBEA95.4070900@rits.org.br> <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <47CBF84D.6090109@rits.org.br> Dear Phil, I understand all this, I know the transition will take a long time (but one day we will all be IPv6ers, right? transitions can be long, but they are still transitions), I know the tech community is keen to pay rigorous attention to all aspects of this and it should, I know there are very complex issues in all layers etc etc etc. This is not the point. The point is there are several real processes going on and there seems to be few spaces dedicated to follow this up in a consolidated fashion from the point of view of the end user, the decision-maker or the journalist. This is not for me necessarily (as I follow the issues as much as I can), but for the public and particularly those constituencies. The European initiative I mention seems to promise this and seems a good start (clearly the people who created it understand what I am trying to say), but are there others, would this be the reference on this need etc? There is obviously an effort which ought to be carried out outside of the laboratories to convince decision-makers of the importance of this process. For this, good, updated and reliable, well organized info which the "mortals" can understand (and grasp its relevance) is crucial. []s fraternos --c.a. Phil Regnauld wrote: > Carlos Afonso (ca) writes: >> A question for the ones engaged in this interesting thread: is there an >> Internet space (a Web site or similar) which is trying to consolidate and >> report regularly on the progress of IPv4->IPv6 transition? I know there are >> real tests being done in several countries, in large networks, and >> occasional ones, all bringing interesting conclusions (and best practices), >> but I have so far not found a space which gives us a vision of the whole >> process -- in my view, a great need for the ones preparing to (or fearing >> to) "migrate". >> >> Please note I am not talking about inner techie spaces, but something a >> journalist or a decision-maker (who is not a network techie) can read and >> understand. There is the IPv6 European Task Force portal (www.ipv6tf.org) >> which does something along the lines I am talking about. Is this *the* site >> people should be visiting? > > > There is no single site. There is no single transition. There, is > fact, no real transition to speak of. IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist > for a long time, as they are two different network protocols on the > wire. How far is the transition ? To answer that question you'd have > to actually be able to measure the amount of readyness of every internet- > IPv4 connected organisation out there, with regards to IPv6. This means: > > - applications > - clients > - networks > > (that's very much simplified). > > If you want to get started, you're still stuck with reading > what are mostly technical resources such as: > > http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 08:17:54 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:47:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <47CBF84D.6090109@rits.org.br> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> <47CBEA95.4070900@rits.org.br> <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> <47CBF84D.6090109@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <00c401c87d30$ffc85380$ff58fa80$@net> Carlos Afonso wrote: > There is obviously an effort which ought to be carried out outside of > the laboratories to convince decision-makers of the importance of this > process. For this, good, updated and reliable, well organized info > which the "mortals" can understand (and grasp its relevance) is crucial. It is a bit of a catch 22. You will find that anything that covers it in sufficient detail will require a certain investment in time and thinking .. V6 or v4 is entirely transparent to the user or at a certain level he is aware of it, sort of how you can drive a car and realize the difference between leaded and unleaded fuel, a stick shift v/s an automatic transmission, without going to engg school .. but if you want to understand the tech behind it at least a crash course in engg is in order Tougher when you're asking to know the details of (say) space travel rather than just driving a car. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pr+governance at x0.dk Mon Mar 3 08:27:01 2008 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:27:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <47CBF84D.6090109@rits.org.br> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> <47CBEA95.4070900@rits.org.br> <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> <47CBF84D.6090109@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080303132701.GG29338@macbook.catpipe.net> Carlos Afonso (ca) writes: > The European > initiative I mention seems to promise this and seems a good start (clearly > the people who created it understand what I am trying to say), but are > there others, would this be the reference on this need etc? Do they ? Can you find me an easily locatable document on that website that clearly illustrates the problem that v4 to v6 transition is facing, mainly that of IPv4 shortage, and translation mechanisms ? I can see the names on some of the documents on that website, and yes, they are knowleddgeable about IPv6, but we don't need more corporate speak at the moment. We need more concise, to-the-point presentations and articles, that while they may be aimed at non technical people, clearly outline the challenges, which are ALL TECHNICAL. What the EU should be doing is what Japan did: coerce public and private administrations into taking the plunge early, or else face the consequences (including penalties). People just don't WANT to understand these issues until their wallets are affected. > There is obviously an effort which ought to be carried out outside of the > laboratories to convince decision-makers of the importance of this process. To what effect ? What are decision makers going to do at this point ? I'm not blaming them for the mistakes being made, the technical community (us) didn't wake up and smell the coffee early enough, but I fail to see > For this, good, updated and reliable, well organized info which the > "mortals" can understand (and grasp its relevance) is crucial. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > Phil Regnauld wrote: >> Carlos Afonso (ca) writes: >>> A question for the ones engaged in this interesting thread: is there an >>> Internet space (a Web site or similar) which is trying to consolidate and >>> report regularly on the progress of IPv4->IPv6 transition? I know there >>> are real tests being done in several countries, in large networks, and >>> occasional ones, all bringing interesting conclusions (and best >>> practices), but I have so far not found a space which gives us a vision >>> of the whole process -- in my view, a great need for the ones preparing >>> to (or fearing to) "migrate". >>> >>> Please note I am not talking about inner techie spaces, but something a >>> journalist or a decision-maker (who is not a network techie) can read and >>> understand. There is the IPv6 European Task Force portal (www.ipv6tf.org) >>> which does something along the lines I am talking about. Is this *the* >>> site people should be visiting? >> >> >> There is no single site. There is no single transition. There, is >> fact, no real transition to speak of. IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist >> for a long time, as they are two different network protocols on the >> wire. How far is the transition ? To answer that question you'd have >> to actually be able to measure the amount of readyness of every internet- >> IPv4 connected organisation out there, with regards to IPv6. This means: >> >> - applications >> - clients >> - networks >> >> (that's very much simplified). >> >> If you want to get started, you're still stuck with reading >> what are mostly technical resources such as: >> >> http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 08:38:50 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:38:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <20080303132701.GG29338@macbook.catpipe.net> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> <47CBEA95.4070900@rits.org.br> <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> <47CBF84D.6090109@rits.org.br> <20080303132701.GG29338@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <47CBFF6A.4090601@rits.org.br> OK, let us read other people's opinions on this, if any. frt rgds --c.a. Phil Regnauld wrote: > Carlos Afonso (ca) writes: >> The European >> initiative I mention seems to promise this and seems a good start (clearly >> the people who created it understand what I am trying to say), but are >> there others, would this be the reference on this need etc? > > Do they ? Can you find me an easily locatable document on that website > that clearly illustrates the problem that v4 to v6 transition is facing, > mainly that of IPv4 shortage, and translation mechanisms ? > > I can see the names on some of the documents on that website, and > yes, they are knowleddgeable about IPv6, but we don't need > more corporate speak at the moment. We need more concise, to-the-point > presentations and articles, that while they may be aimed at non > technical people, clearly outline the challenges, which are ALL > TECHNICAL. > > What the EU should be doing is what Japan did: coerce public and > private administrations into taking the plunge early, or else face > the consequences (including penalties). People just don't WANT > to understand these issues until their wallets are affected. > >> There is obviously an effort which ought to be carried out outside of the >> laboratories to convince decision-makers of the importance of this process. > > To what effect ? What are decision makers going to do at this point ? > I'm not blaming them for the mistakes being made, the technical community > (us) didn't wake up and smell the coffee early enough, but I fail > to see > >> For this, good, updated and reliable, well organized info which the >> "mortals" can understand (and grasp its relevance) is crucial. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> Phil Regnauld wrote: >>> Carlos Afonso (ca) writes: >>>> A question for the ones engaged in this interesting thread: is there an >>>> Internet space (a Web site or similar) which is trying to consolidate and >>>> report regularly on the progress of IPv4->IPv6 transition? I know there >>>> are real tests being done in several countries, in large networks, and >>>> occasional ones, all bringing interesting conclusions (and best >>>> practices), but I have so far not found a space which gives us a vision >>>> of the whole process -- in my view, a great need for the ones preparing >>>> to (or fearing to) "migrate". >>>> >>>> Please note I am not talking about inner techie spaces, but something a >>>> journalist or a decision-maker (who is not a network techie) can read and >>>> understand. There is the IPv6 European Task Force portal (www.ipv6tf.org) >>>> which does something along the lines I am talking about. Is this *the* >>>> site people should be visiting? >>> >>> There is no single site. There is no single transition. There, is >>> fact, no real transition to speak of. IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist >>> for a long time, as they are two different network protocols on the >>> wire. How far is the transition ? To answer that question you'd have >>> to actually be able to measure the amount of readyness of every internet- >>> IPv4 connected organisation out there, with regards to IPv6. This means: >>> >>> - applications >>> - clients >>> - networks >>> >>> (that's very much simplified). >>> >>> If you want to get started, you're still stuck with reading >>> what are mostly technical resources such as: >>> >>> http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 09:56:49 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:56:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section In-Reply-To: <3e6801c87593$cdeb6ea0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <3e6801c87593$cdeb6ea0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47CC11B1.1060300@rits.org.br> Fine, Ian, *if* there weren't a rule established by the UN (which is not in Tunis Agenda) that 50% of the MAG ought to be composed of government reps. We can of course always try and struggle against this, but the attempt to do it during the latest MAG meeting met with a concrete wall from the MAG secretariat, just saying this is not under discussion. So we are left with trying to achieve a balance of representation within the other 50%. --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a pretty > good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs? > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of > different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along > with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to > ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership > should be divided equally among Stakeholders. > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet > administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards > should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil > society participation. > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section > > 2008/2/22 Ian Peter : >> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if >> you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft > > I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this: > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH > groups). > > Can you live with that? > > So now it would read: > > The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of > representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly > established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil > society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new > experiment in global governance. > > We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, > membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups > if you prefer] > > We also agree that the organizations having an important role in > Internet administration and the development of Internet-related > technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. > However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader > civil society participation. > -- Carlos A. Afonso direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor) conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) ******************************************************************* Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br ******************************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 3 10:45:42 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:45:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [cc-mediareform] Baker Leaving NTIA Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC55D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> FYI. From the US-based media reform list, which has a domestic policy focus, but M. Baker is also the NTIA acting head who presided over the ICANN hearing last week. See the IGP blog http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/2/27/3549041.html for an analysis / contrast of the UN IGF consultation and the US ICANN consultation. -----Original Message----- Meredith Baker Leaving National Telecommunications and Information Administration By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/28/2008 4:42:00 PM According to sources, Meredith Atwell Baker, acting head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and point person on the government's digital-TV-to-analog converter-box-coupon subsidy program, is exiting that post. "Meredith Baker has been talking with Commerce Department officials for months about her desire to leave," confirmed NTIA spokesman Todd Sedmak. "There is no timetable for her departure, and she is going to ensure a smooth transition to her future replacement." Baker has only been running the NTIA since shortly before Thanksgiving, after the abrupt exit of John Kneuer just six weeks or so before the launch of the coupon program Jan. 1. As acting assistant secretary for communications and information, she is responsible for administering the program that is distributing millions of $40 coupons the government will issue to consumers. The NTIA is distributing two $40 coupons per household to help pay for the boxes, which allow analog-only TVs not hooked up to cable to receive over-the-air digital signals after Feb. 17, 2009, when full-power TV stations must pull the plug on analog. Just two weeks ago, Baker was on Capitol Hill briefing legislators on the progress of the coupon program. The NTIA began mailing the coupons Feb. 18. More than 3.4 million households have requested more than 6.4 million coupons. As acting head, Baker would have had to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to take over as official head of the agency. The collegial and genial Baker had been considered a good fit for the high-profile phase of the coupon campaign, when the NTIA must work with industry and government partners on an education campaign. Baker has been with the NTIA since 2004, when she joined as a senior advisor. The NTIA is the administration's telecommunications-policy advisor, but the DTV-transition-coupon program has put it in the spotlight as never before. Before joining the NTIA, Baker was vice president of Williams Mullen Strategies and, before that, director of congressional affairs at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. Her resume also includes working in the legislative-affairs office at the State Department. House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) thanked her for her service and urged the White House to nominated a full-time replacement. "Given ongoing concerns about the converter box coupon program, it is important that there be continuity of leadership at NTIA," he said in a statement, "I'm pleased Ms. Baker is committed to remaining at NTIA until a replacement is confirmed and urge the President to nominate a well-qualified replacement who is knowledgeable about the transition and whose arrival will not cause any disruptions at this critical time in the transition." Jason Oxman, senior VP of the Consumer Electronics Association, whose members are making those converter boxes and partnering with broadcast and cable operators to promote the DTV switch, praised Baker's service. "CEA applauds and thanks Meredith Attwell Baker for her years of dedicated service to the American people," he said. "We will continue to work with the dedicated public servants at NTIA, including the Administration's new choice as the Assistant Secretary, on the successful implementation of the DTV converter box coupon program. We appreciate the Administration's strong commitment to ensuring the success of the nation's transition to digital television on February 17, 2009." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 11:45:41 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:15:41 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <0935D155-DC1E-4A45-AF4E-FA9DA54FC4D6@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080303164549.98E8168149@smtp1.electricembers.net> > > 'ICANN is CS' > > well they are a non profit NGO. > > and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS. Avri And you expect us to ignore the fact that when ICANN had the choice to register either as civil society entity or as business sector entity for WSIS it registered as a business sector entity :) So all this defense of ICANN as CS may be a case of being 'more loyal than the king'. Though we all agree that ICANN is a new kind of an organization and did not fit into existing UN classification. There is no class there for a global governance body which is not inter-governmental. But that doesn't make it into a CS entity, it makes it into a global governance entity. ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to extracting accountability in relation to their policy making function, we need to differentiate ourselves from it. The same is not true for instance about the other IG CS group of Loius Pouzin and Francis Muguet. If one does not agree with them, one can do ones business and not engage with them or whatever... They don't have any monopoly power to make policy that impacts you, so disengaging is possible. But this is not true of ICANN. So it is not CS. > but we cannot unilaterally > declare them to not be CS. > First of all it is not so unilateral because they themselves have declared themselves non-CS as per their WSIS registration. Secondly, FOR OUR OWN PURPOSES we have complete right to declare any other organization - with which we are forced to do business, in this case because of their policy making power over us - as of one or the other kind, with due justifications. And I thought we accepted the distinction between ICANN+ organizations and civil society when we said in our consensus statement that "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." The only thing we could not agree upon was whether to consider these orgs for a special three-stakeholders-plus quota, or consider this group of orgs as a fourth stakeholder. Personally, I have not much against the nomenclature stakeholder, though it cant be said that all stakeholder by the very fact should get equal quota...... but well, these points could not be clarified. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 6:22 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > > On 3 Mar 2008, at 11:28, Parminder wrote: > > > 'ICANN is CS' > > well they are a non profit NGO. > > and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS. > > so however we define them, or even how they define themselves, know > that others defined them, and ISOC, and the RIRs and many of the non > profit ccTLD organizations or root server organizations as CS (not > sure what the ITU in WSIS with all of these entities). they may not > be IGC as we define it, since IGC seems to be individuals not > organizations it probably doesn't matter, but we cannot unilaterally > declare them to not be CS. > > well we can, but it might both moot and pyrrhic. > > > 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Mon Mar 3 11:52:43 2008 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:52:43 +0100 Subject: VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG Message-ID: <64860147@web.de> Dear Wolfgang, This time I agree with most of what you said. But to me it looks as if you hesitate to make the final logical step: The idea that there are three distinct “stakeholder” groups – cs, business and government – is in itself a relic from the industrial age. Actually, in a world were consumers become investors (nice reading stuff: “Supercapitalism - The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life” by Robert Reich), and democratic governments at least partly fight for business interests, a non-hierarchical “one third for every stakeholder group” approach finally leads to a superior role for the business sector (that’s why our friends from the ICC are so enthusiastic about the IGF setting). Taking into consideration that business is a driving force for innovation and growth, I’m not saying that this is generally a bad development, but we should be aware that sometimes this might make it more difficult to defend public interest against economic interests (at least in my country the cathalytic converter for cars would not have become mandatory in a non-hierachical ms automotive community ). Michael _______________________________________________________________________ Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From michael_leibrandt at web.de Mon Mar 3 12:11:03 2008 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:11:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers Message-ID: <64870504@web.de> Sylvia, Don't let anybody tell you that you're the only one putting questions marks behind certain aspects of the GeoTLD concept. For obvious reasons, potential suppliers have usually better means to make themselfs heard (especially if there are strong investors in the background). "Sponsored" opinion surveys, expert evaluations etc. are part of the game, which is fine as long as people don't take them too serious. It should give the impression that everybody who knows the subject and doesn't have bad intentions is by definition pro GeoTLD. Nonsense, of course. I think there is no clear “yes” or “no” regarding the GeoTLD question. As usual in life, it depends. The weakness of the current GeoTLD discussion is that it usually tries to answer three questions at the same time: a) What should the string look like? b) What is the appropriate legal framework? c) Who are the people we can trust? For example, a CityTLD using a placeholder string and run by a pristine not-for-profit organisation with support from all parts of the relevant community including the public authorities would deserve a different answer than a CityTLD using the full geographical name and being offered by commercial entities against the clear will of significant parts of the local community. Looking at specific concepts on the whole gives potential users a good impression if something is mainly about serving the community at-large or cashing in by using a famous geographic name. It’s good that we have a variety of concepts on the ICANN table, so there is a helpful competition of concepts going on. To accept one GeoTLD string doesn’t mean that other proposals have to be accepted as well, if the underlying concepts and the local conditions (history, mentality, legal setting etc.) are different. Michael _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 12:19:25 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:49:25 +0530 Subject: VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <64860147@web.de> Message-ID: <20080303171938.4BBA3681CD@smtp1.electricembers.net> > we should be aware that sometimes this might make it more difficult to > defend public interest against economic interests (at least in my country > the cathalytic converter for cars would not have become mandatory in a > non-hierachical ms automotive community ). Exactly the case as quoted by Stephane regarding current tech governance. >>Fora like the IGF never discuss practical things, focusing instead on politician matters like >>the number of seats in a board. This is the challenge that CS should now take. >>Otherwise, the Internet will be ruled by the big and wealthy companies. A recent Internet-draft >on the design process of the new architecture (>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-burness-locid- >evaluate) >>says it quite bluntly: > >Key players must not be disadvantaged, or they may try to obstruct > >standards or restrict deployment Equivalents of success of cathalytic converter in Germany may not be possible in a tech governance regime, as at present, with inadequate sensitivity to the distinction between public interest and economic/ business/ private interests. Also a problem of category and interest definitions, and limits all-our-interests-are-shared (at least for non-gov categories) approach. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de > Subject: Re: VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG > > Dear Wolfgang, > > This time I agree with most of what you said. But to me it looks as if you > hesitate to make the final logical step: The idea that there are three > distinct “stakeholder” groups – cs, business and government – is in itself > a relic from the industrial age. Actually, in a world were consumers > become investors (nice reading stuff: “Supercapitalism - The > Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life” by Robert > Reich), and democratic governments at least partly fight for business > interests, a non-hierarchical “one third for every stakeholder group” > approach finally leads to a superior role for the business sector (that’s > why our friends from the ICC are so enthusiastic about the IGF setting). > Taking into consideration that business is a driving force for innovation > and growth, I’m not saying that this is generally a bad development, but > we should be aware that sometimes this might make it more difficult to > defend public interest against economic interests (at least in my country > the cathalytic converter for cars would not have become mandatory in a > non-hierachical ms automotive community ). > > Michael > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage > kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Mar 3 12:22:08 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:22:08 -0800 Subject: VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF In-Reply-To: <20080303171938.4BBA3681CD@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <64860147@web.de> <20080303171938.4BBA3681CD@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080303172208.GA5794@hserus.net> Yes, but look at the flip side. A pure civil society regime of the sort you advocate couldnt build a bullock cart, let alone a catalytic converter. Parminder [03/03/08 22:49 +0530]: >Equivalents of success of cathalytic converter in Germany may not be >possible in a tech governance regime, as at present, with inadequate >sensitivity to the distinction between public interest and economic/ >business/ private interests. Also a problem of category and interest >definitions, and limits all-our-interests-are-shared (at least for non-gov >categories) approach. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Mon Mar 3 12:40:58 2008 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:40:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... In-Reply-To: <031401c8725e$081d2840$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <031401c8725e$081d2840$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <846C5F9D-86DE-43B7-96AF-66053802762E@telus.net> Someone on this list once identified the only true TLD as "the individual." I found that to be a a very useful notion (does anyone remember who said it?). Recently I've seen two of those deep background posts, largely ignored, that caused me to reflect on what that notion might mean. In a posting to this list, Feb 18th (see below), Mike Gurstein identified a partially contested and overlapping policy space or continuum running from Internet Governance on the one hand to the uses of ICTS for development (ICT4D) on the other. He also noted that, while the IGF has a "measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space," ICT4D really "needs to have its own policy forum." In the art of scenario construction, such continuums map key drivers of change - in this case capacity for evolving development policy appropriate to the role of the Internet in the daily life of a Digital Age. We can ask the question - where does a person or agency (i.e. a stake holder) fit on that continuum? Then in a similar vein, there was a posting by JCF Morfin on the same day on the ALAC list (which. when I noted it to him, Mike called for a "synchronicity alert"). Morfin identified (among other things) a different continuum of possible policy interaction over Internet governance running from "unilateralism" (where ICANN/IETF is "singular" and based on an "Internet community") to "multilateralism" (where the WSIS/IGF is "plural" and based on five poles: civil society, private sector, regalian domain, international entities, and technical/normative community). In his description, ICANN sees the Internet as a "single network of networks" with a decentralized architecture and governance, while the WSIS sees the Internet as "people centric" and calls for a diversity of networks of the network of networks that "demands" a "distributed architecture" and a "distributed governance (intergovernance)." If I am interpreting him correctly, the driver of change mapped by this continuum would be the way that the imagined mode of governance defines network mission. Morfin then finds that the ALAC, as a "distributed organization" is the key to ICANN's necessary evolution towards "distributed governance (intergovernance)." He says, "ALAC is now here, but not ready yet. It is for ICANN the only and proper tool, to interface the IGF and advise the BoD as to how to steer in shallow waters where the majority would like to get rid of ICANN." Of particular importance is the role that the ALAC's partner ALSs can play to "inform their local community" so that technical solutions to strategic issues "will locally emerge." Even given my appreciation of the distance we'll have to go to get there, I sympathize with his faith in the ALACs future possible utility. For the full text of Morfin's post see: I became curious to see what might be revealed about the future of organizational interactions in Internet Governance by axially mapping these two continuums against each other. I attach the graphic I produced to do this as a pdf file below. I gave it the title, "The only true TLD is the Individual," because, in effect, the graphic illustrates a scenario, and that's a good title for a possible future. My primary conclusion from this analysis is that we are defining the necessary stake holders in Internet Governance far too narrowly. In effect, we are looking inwardly towards the institutions we inhabit, rather than outwardly into society where the true picture of impact will emerge. And thus we underestimate or ignore the essential public consciousness raising about the Internet's role in change that will be required to get to that future. What is now a closed process must become an open process. For example, Vint Cerf recently said that agencies using ICTs for social change have an essential role in “communicating the meaning of the Internet's evolution in the context of a collaborative ecology.” Good point that! This next part of this note is going to seem like a segue at first. But it will allow me to add in my own key driver - the nature and role of community online. On first coming into the Internet, it was apparent to me that distributed collaboration in community online was becoming a significant factor in social organization. I still see no reason to alter that faith. Morfin challenged his readers to supply their own visions. Here is mine ... Effective communities are composed of individuals who choose to act in a common space and who share a sense of commitment and responsibility to others in that space. Communities are dynamic and self-organizing. This is the basis of their formation and governance. Acting to realize the opportunities of community as it goes online requires a vision of open systems of access, design, practice, and policy debate. The internet as designed expresses that vision directly. The internet is a global commons and a public good that mirrors the governance of community online. It is fundamental to the networked structure of a Learning Society. Changes to internet governance should not impede the development of the internet as a commons. Here are two recent posts to the IGC list that, for me, illustrate the difficulties of getting the idea of Internet as a commons and Internet Governance as collaborative ecology into the main stream. > From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] main themes > Date: February 19, 2008 7:16:49 PM PST > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, parminder at itforchange.net > > I suggest you try to include a theme on netizens - on the Internet > as a support for grassroots democracy and participation in > governance issues. Somehow this all seems to get left out. > From: parminder at itforchange.net > Subject: RE: [governance] main themes > Date: February 21, 2008 2:28:05 AM PST > To: ronda.netizen at gmail.com, governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Ronda .... Personally I will like you to think of replacing the > term 'netizens' because it may look like giving too much of a > techie spin to the theme (I know you do not mean it like that). The word "netizen" is useful in altering our assumptions about that other word that pre-occupies us, "governance." ICANN has said, "ICANN – in deference to its public trust – will continue to collaborate with these CITIZENS OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY to advance the notions of a unique root system as a prerequisite to Internet stability, and to ensure that community-based policies take precedence. " But, that statement is a good example of the inwardness I mentioned. If the only true TLD is the individual, then everyone is a citizen or netizen of the internet community. If everyone is a netizen, how can that be merely technical? And, if someone chooses to self-identify as a netizen, then respect requires the acceptance of the legitimacy of that voice. Being inclusively multi-anything requires listening to and respecting how other people identify themselves. Risking an open and outward voice in a Digital Age will require that we speak to a different view about the nature of governance. Even though I admit that I don't find occasion to use it much, I find Netizen to be a useful neologism. It reminds me that a citizen of cyberspace has a right to good e-governance, but also a corresponding responsibility to know and to say what that is. What does make my hair stand on end in fear is that even Wikipedia currently "redirects" an e-governance query to "e-government." These are not at all the same thing. Why would we expect that the nature of citizenship to remain unaltered in the face of daily life online? I have looked in several places that should reasonably supply a useful definition of e-governance and found that they don't. So here below, for the purposes of ICT4D and people-centric distributed governance, is my own definition: "E-governance is the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power by various levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and gain a greater voice in the public decision making process. E- governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of interaction." Being online allows us to see more clearly a key shift in our assumptions about the structure of society - that a “person” is a network in a society of networks. The scale of relationship is fractal, not linear. The identities we assume in relationship are particular to the situations that occur. They emerge from, or are grounded in, the choices we make. The “individual” in these “situated” relationships is not classically isolated person assuming a contract that is imposed by the society they inhabit. They are themselves an emergent composite of physical and social relationships that are networked. We don't just adapt to the world as if it were a fixed thing. Interdependently, we participate in the world and thus change its nature. We then adapt to an altered nature in which we have participated. Interaction has consequences. Netizens accept responsibility for the consequences of their interactions. What is really at issue, or central to that looming necessary public debate, is identity online or the autonomous expression of the self within a fractal structure of social organization that is truly different. It's the individual who decides to connect and it's the Internet (TCP/IP) that merely makes the connection. It is vital to hold fast to that simplicity. GG On 18-Feb-08, at 10:42 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Post-WSIS policy discussions were (at least informally) meant to be > proceeded with on the governance side through the IGF and on the > ICT4D side > through the Global Alliance for ICT4D (i.e. the GAID which morphed > from the > UN's ICT4D Task Force when that agency sunsetted in December 2005... > > Since then, the IGF has captured more or less all of the attention > of CS, > and seems well on the way to becoming some sort of "agency" and > focal point > for all forms and measures of post-WSIS substantive policy > discussions cf. > Don Maclean's recent post on Sustainable Development and the IGF, > and Tom > Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a Cities TLD theme. > > In the meantime the GAID publicly abjured itself from a "policy > role" (the > Santa Clara meeting), attempted to establish itself as a > programmatic/implementation body (through its partnership with > Intel and > through its adoption (as its own) of various already existing > programmatic > initiatives (Telecentres.org, the African connectivity > initiative)). In > addition, the GAID adopted for itself a completely non-transparent and > top-down governance structure and only infrequently surfaced as the > sponsor/co-sponsor of various events in various places with little > coherence, virtually no frameworks for non-centralized > participation, and > little visible contribution to ICT4D "policy". > > In the absence of any "there" being "there", the IGF has, through > its own > vague adoption of a "development" mandate (and "access" as a theme) > begun a > measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space. > ........... > > To conclude this ramble, I do not think that the IGF is an > appropriate forum > for ICT4D policy discussion (not including the very very small sub- > section > where ICT4D and IG issues narrowly defined overlap...) > > The communities (particularly on the CS side) do not overlap in > representation, knowledge bases, interest, or overall desired > outcomes (for > the events). ICT4D needs to have its own policy forum (I guess a > subsidiary > spun off group from the IGF if properly constituted might work) and > particularly one where the necessary voices of grassroots ICT4D > folks can > make themselves heard. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: True TLD2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57179 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From karl at cavebear.com Mon Mar 3 12:54:52 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:54:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York In-Reply-To: <20080303094855.GB11814@nic.fr> References: <47CA72F4.6080608@cavebear.com> <20080303094855.GB11814@nic.fr> Message-ID: <47CC3B6C.1020507@cavebear.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Sylvia Caras was not mentioning technical obstacles, just an user > issue. Actually, noone still claims that there is a technical issue > with a larger set of TLD. You are, as you usually are, entirely correct. One of my favorite games is the mindless "whack a mole" arcade game. So when I see a mention of the number of TLD's I kinda react by trying to whack that particular mole. Yet I still hear statements from various folks about "why do we need more TLDs?" and sometimes those statements are wrapped with other statements bemoaning the fact that those people would be confused by more choices and that, therefore, the net should not have more choices. So it does seem that small and restrictive thinking still exists. --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 KovenRonald at aol.com Mon Mar 3 13:53:45 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:53:45 EST Subject: VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang -- You (and others) seem to have a basic misunderstanding about the World Press Freedom Committee. It has both labor and management affiliates united for the defense and furtherance of press freedom. WPFC's activities are not in defense of anyone's commercial interests but for the press freedom interests of the independent print, broadcast and online press, regardless of their forms of ownership -- public, private or cooperative, but above all, independent. Our opposition to the "Right to Communicate" has been based on its origin as a collective rather than an individual human right invented by the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. The term has continued to be used as a code word for a collectivist approach, with all the dangers that represents for press freedom as an individuakl human right. Instead, we have argued for the implementation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If that were actually to be brought into force everywhere, there would be a true right to communicate worldwide. Best regards, Rony Koven, European Representative, WPFC ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 15:30:46 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:30:46 +0100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <20080303164549.98E8168149@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080303164549.98E8168149@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4C1DE038-FD0C-40E5-8EFA-7622532267EC@psg.com> On 3 Mar 2008, at 17:45, Parminder wrote: > >>> 'ICANN is CS' >> >> well they are a non profit NGO. >> >> and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS. > > Avri > > And you expect us to ignore the fact that when ICANN had the choice to > register either as civil society entity or as business sector entity > for > WSIS it registered as a business sector entity :) So all this > defense of > ICANN as CS may be a case of being 'more loyal than the king'. > Though we all > agree that ICANN is a new kind of an organization and did not fit into > existing UN classification. There is no class there for a global > governance > body which is not inter-governmental. But that doesn't make it into > a CS > entity, it makes it into a global governance entity. I don't think I have any expectations about what should ignore or not. And as I said it really doesn't matter what they registered as at the end of the day. All I am trying to point out is that there are lots of definitions and definitions and self associations vary over time. I have no interest in whether ICANN is CS or not and am really only used them as an example. i could have spoke about ISOC or W3C if I had wanted. what I am saying is that it is debatable, once we get into arguing definitions, whether a non-profit NGO is a CS is or it isn't. And with multistakeholder organizations, i think it is difficult to peg them down. > > > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making > function, we > need to differentiate ourselves from it. This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the policy making process? Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be affected by policy and never the maker of policy? Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance policy. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 3 16:53:45 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:53:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section In-Reply-To: <47CC11B1.1060300@rits.org.br> References: <3e6801c87593$cdeb6ea0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47CC11B1.1060300@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC577@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Fine, Ian, *if* there weren't a rule established by the UN > (which is not > in Tunis Agenda) that 50% of the MAG ought to be composed of > government > reps. Carlos: Where is this "rule" codified? Are you confusing a "rule" with a "deal"? backroom lobbying? special pleading? de facto injustice? 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 Mon Mar 3 17:40:22 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:40:22 -0500 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: <5fmg5b$84l94h@mail.servidor.unam.mx> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] > > Tim and Ian have said the rest succintly enough. And they > didn't have to use the word "sectarian" so I bow to their > powers of expression too. I think it's totally unfair to call Parminder "sectarian"; having dealt with truly sectarian people in politics (including the Spartacist Youth League in Berkeley California in the 1970s) I can only laugh at the accusation. What Parminder is, or wants to be, is political, which is a legitimate aspiration. By this I mean that he wants this caucus to be an effective and independent political force, able to advocate positions and give direction to the dialogue, and offering some countervailing power to the institutions and people who already hold power. This means that it needs to settle on some kind of common ground, when possible. P. and I often have severe disagreements on policy and even values but we agree on that. I am not sure this whole debate is productive, but the issues it raises go much deeper I think than some people involved suspect. The endless debate about the boundaries of civil society simply displays how how uncritically many of us have fallen into the conceptual trap presented by naive "multistakeholderism" (an awful word which we can abbreviate as MS -- but personally, I prefer the acronym MuSH). By definition, MS ideology requires stakeholders to be categorized into groups to achieve representation, but of course since we are dealing with people who hold various overlapping roles in society the categories are not and cannot be mutually exclusive. Once you recognize that inherent contradiction in MuSH ideology, it's frankly hypocritical for people to invoke MS as some kind of good and wonderful thing that we should all work for, and then at the same time be completely cavalier about the way people are categorized and represented in a MS consultative or advisory regime. It's obvious to any politically astute observer of these exchanges that the people who are cavalier and always talking about blurred boundaries are the ones who are adequately represented or have privileged access to representation. And it's equally obvious that the ones demanding more rigid, and careful and exclusionary definitions that are balanced across the arbitrary categories are the ones who feel relatively excluded from representation. Plus ca change.... We probably wont' move far beyond that impasse, but can I at least ask the dialogue to be clarified: if you conceive of MuSH as a mechanism of representation, then you've got to accept putting people into categories in ways that make sense; i.e., which balance power across interest groups and maximize the ability of the public interest to be voiced. And if you reject effective stakeholder categorization then don't run around calling yourself an advocate or practitioner of MS governance and don't sing its praises. The liberal democratic nation-state of the 18th-19th century solved this problem of representation by making the political unit the individual -- the citizen -- and all citizens equal under the law and afforded the same opportunities and rights. MuSH is a very poor, uninspiring substitute for that noble stage of political development; it's only virtue is that it breaks the monopoly of states in the international dialogue. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Mar 3 17:44:12 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:44:12 +1100 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <843001c87d80$21ab27d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> I think from the various threads around IPv6 and user input into IETF etc that we should begin to realize that there is a structural problem with current Internet governance. As Stephane points out, there is no clear avenue for user input and this is needed sometimes. As Phil points out, there is no co-ordinated information source for IPv6 information for managers and decision makers trying to understand the implications and issues involved in transition. As Carlos points out, there are lots of people who want this information in plain language. And, as Suresh points out, communication of the issues with non technical people is difficult. In my professional life, I have spent much of the last fifteen years working with governments and large corporations managing projects and large scale IT rollouts, managing technical staff and acting as a conduit between technical staff and organizational management. I've also often advised organizations on how to structure their governance in information and knowledge management areas. There is quite a lot of theory here, a lot of lessons learnt from massive IT failures, and a lot of literature. As I do not expect every participant here to learn management theory to understand the nature of the problem (just as I reject the concept that everyone here needs to undertake technical courses to talk about IPv6) let me summarise. Technical-only co-ordination without appropriate overview governance structures is a known problem. I've actually been surprised that people would talk about it as a plus in the context of Internet governance. People who wish to explore this further could google Klinger Cohen Act, to find out how long ago the US government actually legislated to ensure the concept did not exist in IT governance in the US bureaucracy. As regards governance; governance structures are recommended to ensure that technical groups report into more general management areas where all business stakeholders are represented. As well, it is usually recommended that for large scale activities that affect end users, project governance structures be set up that include representatives of all affected bodies to ensure there concerns and requirements are heard and their co-operation is obtained to facilitate the organizational change necessary. Those responsible for managing the change - project teams - include a mix of technical and non technical skills, because both are needed to bring about a smooth transition. Project Managers sit in the middle of all of this, making sure that all stakeholders understand the technical issues, and making sure the approach to implementation takes into account all of the issues and risks inherent in smooth adoption. It's a well developed science with a lot of tried and true processes and standardized approaches. The major cause of failures in technical projects is not technical complexity, but lack of an appropriate implementation strategy to ensure that the organizational change aspects are thought through and dealt with. So large projects almost always include change management and communication specialists. Now this of course doesn't translate exactly into Internet governance because we are talking about something more loosely associated. But I think what does translate is: Structures need to evolve to allow clear processes for stakeholder input from all groups into major decisions, directions, and activities. ICANN has evolved to do this in its small area of operation, in other areas we don't yet have structures and processes in place to achieve this. And until we do a whole lot of things will not be as effective as they should be. This is of course the problem of having no-one in charge in a whole lot of critical areas. That is what I thought an Internet Governance Forum might begin to address, and hopefully will in the near future. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1308 - Release Date: 03/03/2008 10:01 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 3 21:52:58 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:52:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC577@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <3e6801c87593$cdeb6ea0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47CC11B1.1060300@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC577@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47CCB98A.9090504@rits.org.br> Not confusing, just describing a fact. Who exactly has the precise power over this rule (change the term at your will preserving the meaning) -- or the end of it -- is not really clear. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Fine, Ian, *if* there weren't a rule established by the UN >> (which is not >> in Tunis Agenda) that 50% of the MAG ought to be composed of >> government >> reps. > > Carlos: > Where is this "rule" codified? > Are you confusing a "rule" with a "deal"? backroom lobbying? special > pleading? de facto injustice? > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 4 02:29:36 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:29:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <843001c87d80$21ab27d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <20080303123237.GD29338@macbook.catpipe.net> <843001c87d80$21ab27d0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: Hullo Ian, On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think from the various threads around IPv6 and user input into IETF etc > that we should begin to realize that there is a structural problem with > current Internet governance. > > As Stephane points out, there is no clear avenue for user input and this is > needed sometimes. As Phil points out, there is no co-ordinated information > source for IPv6 information for managers and decision makers trying to > understand the implications and issues involved in transition. As Carlos > points out, there are lots of people who want this information in plain > language. And, as Suresh points out, communication of the issues with non > technical people is difficult. > A single source for information may not be as useful as the multiple sources currently out there. Multiple sources mean multiple viewpoints. That is good IMHO. I've never had any problem finding any information on v6 deployment by using my favorite search engine. > Now this of course doesn't translate exactly into Internet governance > because we are talking about something more loosely associated. But I think > what does translate is: > > Structures need to evolve to allow clear processes for stakeholder input > from all groups into major decisions, directions, and activities. > > ICANN has evolved to do this in its small area of operation, in other areas > we don't yet have structures and processes in place to achieve this. And > until we do a whole lot of things will not be as effective as they should > be. > I think there are opportunities for involvement, but sadly they are under utilised. Could they be improved? Certainly. > This is of course the problem of having no-one in charge in a whole lot of > critical areas. That is what I thought an Internet Governance Forum might > begin to address, and hopefully will in the near future. > Thanks you very much for sharing this with us. Frequently on this list, folk seem shy about sharing their vision of the future. I don't see this as a problem, "structural" or otherwise. I see it as a strength of the current system. One single body "in charge" of "critical areas" could be quite limiting in terms of what is possible. For example, say there was an IGF ~10 years ago, and they were "in charge' somehow of IPNG efforts. If they had prescribed "backwards compatibility" with v4 to the IETF, then many if not most of the features promised could never be delivered. I can think of many other examples, but the above may suffice. There is no "Internet Police Force', nor should there be, nor should there be an "Internet Government", rather decentralised functions in diverse bodies that use open, transparent, bottom-up processes, all communicating and coordinating and cooperating together. Much like what we currently have, which has helped to make the Internet so resilient and useful for so many. In addition, I think that giving this sort of authority to an organisation whose "Board" is a "Multistakeholder" Advisory Group which has some not so secret 50% rule of govt representation, and the rest of the folk are appointed by the UNSG is not the sort of body I would choose to take on this uberpower (if I wanted this power to be granted). Call me a "status quo-ist if you like, I'll happily wear that badge on this one (and no I am not talking about ***NN here, tho many of y'all will never understand 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Mar 4 02:56:44 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:56:44 +1100 Subject: [governance] User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <02b001c87dcd$532b6660$8b00a8c0@IAN> Hi McTim, Let me pick up at > > There is no "Internet Police Force', nor should there be, nor should > there be an "Internet Government", rather decentralised functions in > diverse bodies that use open, transparent, bottom-up processes, all > communicating and coordinating and cooperating together. Much like > what we currently have, which has helped to make the Internet so > resilient and useful for so many. > > In addition, I think that giving this sort of authority to an > organisation whose "Board" is a "Multistakeholder" Advisory Group > which has some not so secret 50% rule of govt representation, and the > rest of the folk are appointed by the UNSG is not the sort of body I > would choose to take on this uberpower (if I wanted this power to be > granted). > I don’t see any of this as incompatible with what I am suggesting, nor do I suggest some centralised power such as an IGF as controlling everything. IGF to me would be a nice catalyst for development of separate structures and groups where we currently have gaps (we went through a bit of an analysis of where there are gaps a few months ago here) What I would like to see is a situation where every stakeholder group had a clear and appropriate role in each governance organisation, and where governance organizations as a whole provided coverage of all critical areas where we do need different groups of stakeholders involved. (and clear interrelationships) We aren't there yet! No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1308 - Release Date: 03/03/2008 10:01 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Mar 4 03:51:01 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:51:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080301172737.E6CBE67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080301172737.E6CBE67818@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080304085101.GA24159@nic.fr> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 10:57:26PM +0530, Parminder wrote a message of 316 lines which said: > BTW the view you say you have on the problems of ip6 transition that > " The "problem" is not huge, it'll be worked out in short order (5 > to 10 years)" is not shared by many others who are quite > knowledgeable. Indeed. It is pure propaganda and such marketing-talk was already very costly for IPv6 (many professionnals now see IPv6 with great suspicion since it has been vastly oversold). Instead of just stating the truth (we are running out of IPv4 addresses, hacks like the NAT are very costly both for the application developers, who must implement workarounds like STUN and TURN, and for the users, who are now relegated to a "client-only" role), some IPv6 proponents have tried to sell IPv6 by pretending that some things (like IPsec) were only possible with IPv6. Unfortunately for the Internet, it backfired and now many IT managers throw the IPv6 baby with the marketing bath water :-( For those who are interested in what makes a protocol a success or not, the IAB is currently working on a future RFC named "What Makes For a Successful Protocol?" (available at ). A good start on this difficult question with several case studies (although the most painful for the IETF such as IPv4 vs. IPv6 or Diameter vs. Radius or SNMPv1 vs. SNMPv3 are not discussed). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 4 04:05:11 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:35:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080304085101.GA24159@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20080304090520.76A7A68A13@smtp1.electricembers.net> Stephane > Parminder wrote > a message of 316 lines which said: > > > BTW the view you say you have on the problems of ip6 transition that > > " The "problem" is not huge, it'll be worked out in short order (5 > > to 10 years)" is not shared by many others who are quite > > knowledgeable. To clarify. It is McTim who said the ""problem" is not huge, it'll be worked out in short order (5 > > to 10 years)". In fact, I said in reply that this view is not shared by many. Parminder. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:21 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 10:57:26PM +0530, > Parminder wrote > a message of 316 lines which said: > > > BTW the view you say you have on the problems of ip6 transition that > > " The "problem" is not huge, it'll be worked out in short order (5 > > to 10 years)" is not shared by many others who are quite > > knowledgeable. > > Indeed. It is pure propaganda and such marketing-talk was already very > costly for IPv6 (many professionnals now see IPv6 with great suspicion > since it has been vastly oversold). > > Instead of just stating the truth (we are running out of IPv4 > addresses, hacks like the NAT are very costly both for the application > developers, who must implement workarounds like STUN and TURN, and for > the users, who are now relegated to a "client-only" role), some IPv6 > proponents have tried to sell IPv6 by pretending that some things > (like IPsec) were only possible with IPv6. Unfortunately for the > Internet, it backfired and now many IT managers throw the IPv6 baby > with the marketing bath water :-( > > For those who are interested in what makes a protocol a success or > not, the IAB is currently working on a future RFC named "What Makes > For a Successful Protocol?" (available at > ). A good start > on this difficult question with several case studies (although the > most painful for the IETF such as IPv4 vs. IPv6 or Diameter vs. Radius > or SNMPv1 vs. SNMPv3 are not discussed). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Tue Mar 4 04:58:47 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:58:47 +0100 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CD1D57.3090402@bertola.eu> Avri Doria ha scritto: > Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the the > numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In terms of > the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the 20 places > not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people suggested by > private sector players and 10 should be from those recmmened by civil > society players. I think within each of those groups there should be > people with all sorts of multiple identifications: as feminist, as youth > and elder advocacy, as pro private sector development, as pro public > sector development, as pro PPP development, as pro government, as > anarchist, as advocacy for the disabled, as South, North, East, and > West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and of course members of the internet > community and of academia and an even split between the genders. I think that all groups should select people who are honest, are hard working and committed, are willing to listen, know what they are talking about from several standpoints, and have a personal and professional background as broad as possible. So the people that the IGF should be looking for are exactly the ones that wouldn't fit into a rigid categorization. -- 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Mar 4 06:20:49 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:20:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on CSTD E-list discussions In-Reply-To: <200802271752.m1RHqKaO021961@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200803041119.m24BJmeF016664@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to briefly summarise some recent discussions taking place on the CSTD E-Discussion list on 26-28 February 2008, in preparation of the upcoming 11th session of the CSTD. Some issues have come up: - Format of the session: based on the draft programme of work circulated by the CTSD Secretariat (here attached again), the need to have more guidance on what we expect from each three-hour session (content focus and outcome-oriented) was stressed. [This is something that CONGO already previously supported. During the informal briefing with the CSTD Secretariat on 26/02, APC proposed having some space for discussion on the WSIS principle of participation. A proposal by the WG on Finance was for an assessment of the progress in terms of financing for the Information Society. It would be good to start brainstorming at this stage on which issues / themes CS actors would like to propose to focus on during the next CSTD session.] - Format of the outcome of the session: It was also requested that all drafts of proposed resolutions be circulated before the meeting, and proposed to also have a more informal kind of outcome, such as a Chairperson’s Statement or Summary, containing broader information on the findings of the Commission that would not be appropriate to reflect in a negotiated Resolution-kind text, as well as guidance for the future work of the Commission Content of the outcome of the session: On the question of where a CSTD action is needed, it was recognised there here is a need of a CTSD resolution on a specific theme when the trend is not going in the right direction. The issue of ICT impact indicators was proposed as a theme of a resolution. A critical review of the implementation process by action lines could also take place and the intl organisations serving as Action Line Facilitators could be asked to help in assessing progress on the Action Line actual implementation. - Civil Society participation in the CTSD (academic entities, local authorities, etc.): the issue of the future involvement, after the two transition years, of academic entities, local authorities, research centres etc, included in the Civil Society category during WSIS but which cannot enter in the definition of NGOs as defined by ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, has also been raised. It was proposed to have a solution through the establishment of a list of CS entities accredited to WSIS (and beyond that of CS entities involved in the WSIS implementation process by action lines) but without ECOSOC Consultative Status yet, which have expressed the wish to participate in the CSTD session. A CSTD decision might be necessary in this regard in May 2008. It would be good to have here the input on this matter from the academic community and local authorities in this list. Best regards, Philippe Dam _____ De : CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mercredi, 27. février 2008 18:53 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : CSTD briefing note and provisional programme of work Dear all, Find attached the briefing note and provisional programme of work of the CSTD circulated during yesterday’s briefing. An annotated agenda might be circulated soon. According to this draft PoW, there might be between 2½ or 3 days devoted to WSIS follow up activities. As announced earlier today, it seems the CSTD Secretariat might be open for comments and suggestions regarding this timetable and the way the timetable is presented. Note that some written contributions received so far from international organisations and regional commissions are already posted on the CSTD-XI webpage: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942 &lang=1&m=15018 (click on “contributions”). Other written contributions, including from CS and other actors, will be added on that page. I forgot to mention my previous summary that two Rooms will be made available at the Palais des Nations during the CSTD session for lunchtime side events. Last year, the Global Information Society Watch 2007 Report was launched during such a side event. This possibility is continuing for the 2008 CSTD session. Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mercredi, 27. février 2008 14:05 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : RE: [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII Dear all, Some very preliminary bullet points summarizing the Briefing with the CSTD Secretariat which took place yesterday: - The CSTD members will have two substantive documents on issues related to WSIS follow-up: 1. the normal report of the UN SG to the CSTD, consisting of a 17-page summary of reports from Action Line facilitators; 2. A WSIS 2008 Report, compiled by the CSTD Secretariat, consisting of a more elaborated description of recent developments and trends. A first preliminary outline of this second document might be circulated on that list next week, and the Secretariat insisted on its intention to welcome written input from CS entities and other actors. - The CSTD secretariat circulated a briefing note on the CSTD 11th Session containing a provisional program of work of the 11th session (to be circulated shortly). It would be completed by an annotated agenda. Comments and suggestions from civil society are welcome. - APC recalled the previous proposition of having a multi-stakeholder advisory group to help preparing the content of the CSTD sessions in advance, by providing advice to the CSTD Bureau and Secretariat when necessary. It was recognised that the inclusion of a civil society and a private sector liaison in the governmental e-list was a step ahead. The CSTD Secretariat asked for more details on the proposition of a multi-stakeholder group. - Some discussion took place on how to attract mobilization of CS and other actors around information society processes at the UN: the ideas of having a yearly Information Society Forum, as a shorter and more visible version of the current cluster of event, and of clustering Action Line facilitation meetings were evoked. It could also be explored whether the high level ministerial review of ECOSOC could focus in 2010 on issues related to the WSIS follow up. Anything I missed? More information on these points coming soon. Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mardi 26 février 2008 11:13 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII Importance : Haute Dear all, This is to confirm the briefing meeting with the CTSD Secretariat taking place today between 2.00 pm and 3.00 pm. The venue will be in Room XXVII (first floor). [The room is sometimes hard to find: it is located in the same floor as the Serpentine bar. Take the corridor at the left of room XXVI, and then you’ll find room XVII.] Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : vendredi 22 février 2008 18:01 À : wsis at ngocongo.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [governance] Briefing for CS with secretariat of the CSTD - 26 Feb. 2008 Dear all, This is to inform you that the CSTD Secretariat will arrange some time for a briefing with Civil Society on the preparations towards the up coming 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD, 26-30 May 2008). This briefing will take place, such as last year, during the lunchtime period of the IGF Preparatory meeting. Date: 26 February 2008 Time: 14:00-15:00 Venue: UN Palais des Nations, room number to be confirmed More information shortly. Best, Ph _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : vendredi 15 février 2008 18:42 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparation of the 11th session of the CSTD(26-30 May 2008) Dear all, This is a short series of updates regarding the preparations towards the next session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Some funding available for civil society participants A small number of fellowships will be made available for civil society participants from developing countries. More information on the exact number of fellowship and process for attribution will be made available in the course of March 2008. CS participation in the UN CSTD The CSTD Secretariat is willing to engage into a dialogue with NGOs on how to increase the attractiveness of the CTSD annual session. Some elements can be contained in the informal written contribution that CONGO sent to the CSTD Intersession Panel (November 2007, see here ). In addition to the issue of a common understanding of the multi-stakeholder approach in the CSTD and the modalities for CS involvement, we should probably think of looking at the general format and content of the CSTD session, as well as the nature of its outcome, its follow up and its preparations. On line preparation for the upcoming 11th session The CSTD Secretariat just set up a mailing listserv opened to its Member States, and included me at CONGO and a representative of the ICC as part of this mailing list. (CONGO was included in the listserv without previous notification so that we could not liaise with you beforehand.) The three points put on for the discussion include: - 1. How to improve the impact of the Commission at national, regional and international levels; - 2. How to strike a balance between the Commission's new and traditional mandates; - 3. Organization of work for the 11th session of the CSTD. I will be happy to compile without altering your comments on these 3 sets of issues and forward it to this CSTD members’ listserv. Note that the provisional agenda of the CSTD 11th session is attached to this e-mail. Basically, the three main issues for discussion will be: - review of the progress made in the implementation of, and follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS at regional and international levels; - substantive theme on WSIS follow up: “Development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment” - substantive theme on science and technology mandate: “Science, technology and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and research” More information coming soon. Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Mar 4 07:15:24 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:15:24 -0300 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <47CD1D57.3090402@bertola.eu> References: <47CD1D57.3090402@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <47CD3D5C.6080501@rits.org.br> I think Avri has proposed a draft of a benchmark for an "ideal" non-gov portion of the MAG. The criteria Vittorio invokes go in parallel and are quite hard to estimate -- mostly they are self-attributed (you all will remember in the beginning the self-glorification pledges some candidates sent to the secretariat). The word "committed" needs a supplement: committed to what? To working hard and being honest, for example? Also, there is a problem of not fitting into any rigid categorization. Several good candidates are just members of a single NGO (or business association) and this is what they do. Should they be discarded then because they fit nicely into a single category? I think Vittorio is trying (and this is not wrong) to open up space for individuals who are not formally attached to any organization to have an opportunity to participate. I am sure there are good individuals in this capacity who could do an excellent contribution. But this is an additional set of criteria, of course, which must be used carefully in light of the very small number of non-gov posts available. Regarding the civil society portion, and in light of what happened in the first MAG run, I would stress the importance of the caucus coordinating the nominations (do we have, or need to have, a nominating committee?). It is the only way to try and ensure a (nor perfectly, of course) balanced list of nominees. We have a nice, big challenge! :) frt rgds --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Avri Doria ha scritto: >> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the >> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In >> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the >> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people >> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those >> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those >> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple >> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro >> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro >> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the >> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and >> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an >> even split between the genders. > > I think that all groups should select people who are honest, are hard > working and committed, are willing to listen, know what they are talking > about from several standpoints, and have a personal and professional > background as broad as possible. > > So the people that the IGF should be looking for are exactly the ones > that wouldn't fit into a rigid categorization. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 4 07:28:25 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:28:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080304090520.76A7A68A13@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080304085101.GA24159@nic.fr> <20080304090520.76A7A68A13@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Parminder wrote: > > Stephane > > > > > Parminder wrote > > a message of 316 lines which said: > > > > > BTW the view you say you have on the problems of ip6 transition that > > > " The "problem" is not huge, it'll be worked out in short order (5 > > > to 10 years)" is not shared by many others who are quite > > > knowledgeable. > > > To clarify. It is McTim who said the ""problem" is not huge, it'll be worked > out in short order (5 > > to 10 years)". In fact, I said in reply that this > view is not shared by many. It works for me now. Remember Y2K. Hmmm. Please trim your email. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Mar 4 09:16:11 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:16:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing Message-ID: I suggest seeking redress in the next phase, ie, as a civil society requirement for the post-IGF period. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ca at rits.org.br 03/03/08 9:52 PM >>> Not confusing, just describing a fact. Who exactly has the precise power over this rule (change the term at your will preserving the meaning) -- or the end of it -- is not really clear. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Fine, Ian, *if* there weren't a rule established by the UN >> (which is not >> in Tunis Agenda) that 50% of the MAG ought to be composed of >> government >> reps. > > Carlos: > Where is this "rule" codified? > Are you confusing a "rule" with a "deal"? backroom lobbying? special > pleading? de facto injustice? > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 4 09:18:58 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:48:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006a01c87e02$b1838500$148a8f00$@net> Lee McKnight wrote: > > I suggest seeking redress in the next phase, ie, as a civil society > requirement for the post-IGF period. > Try catching the horse after its bolted, you mean? Yes, that's an option. I'm all for consolidating what gains we do have, and focusing on our strengths though. 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 narten at us.ibm.com Tue Mar 4 09:26:33 2008 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:26:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] How many TLDs? In-Reply-To: <47CA72F4.6080608@cavebear.com> References: <47CA72F4.6080608@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <200803041426.m24EQYoj016002@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Karl Auerbach writes: > Sylvia Caras wrote: > > For me, a central part of the top level domain conversation is how > > many might there be. IMO, this question misses the point. Clearly, if we could have an infinite number of TLDs, there would be an almost infinite demand for them. One need only look at the number of registrations in .com. Or to think about how many vanity TLDs people might want to have. It all comes to down to cost. If the cost to own/run a TLD is low enough (say under $50/year), the demand could easily be in the tens of millions. But just because we _could_ support millions of TLDs and because there might demand for millions of TLDs, doesn't mean we should or that we need to. > From a technical perspective the technical burden of serving a root > zone to the net is equivalent serving a TLD zone. This is true, in a narrow, "technical" sense, but it is misleading, as it suggests there is no reason not to do so. > Today the .com zone runs with roughly 70,000,000 names. .com runs > reliably and with an acceptable administrative error rate. Verisign > has done a good technical job. And, if one were to look at the infrastructure needed to support the .com domain (in terms of bandwidth to the servers to support typical query rates, redundancy, hardware, ability to do frequent updates to the zone, 7x24 operational support, over-provisioning for attack mitigation, etc., etc.) there is a very significant cost associated with running such a service. Then look at the root zone. One of the nice things about the current root zone is that it is (relatively) small, and the zone does not change frequently (currently twice a day I believe). That means that the capital and operational costs of operating a root server are relatively small (compared with .com). This is a good thing, since the root zone is not operated by single monolitic organization. Indeed, the funding model for running the root zone is rather unique. No one pays the root operators to provide a service. Each operator pays for it through their own means. It would be an interesting exercise to think about the implications of (effectively) forcing them to upgrade their support capacity from its current state to something on the scale of supporting .com. In addition, since the root is in some sense a single point of failure, replicating root servers is a very good thing to do in general. With the use of anycast technology, we now have over 100 root servers. That number should and will go up. Indeed, so long as the root zone stays small, just about anyone could run their own root server if they wanted to. But, if each of those replicated root servers had to have an infrastructure behind it equivalent to that needed to support .com, that doesn't come for free. Someone has to pay for it, and it will likely mean that some sites that would like to run their own copy of the root could not do so. Think of less developed regions of the world. Would this be a Good Thing? I think not. All that said, I am NOT arguing that the root needs to be kept at its current size. It could easily be expanded. Rough rules of thumb that I have heard people suggest indicate that increasing the current size of the root zone by two orders of magnitude could be done without any serious issue/change to the current operations of the root zone. So, I don't have any (technical) worries about adding tens or hundreds of new TLDs per year, maybe more as we gain more experience with the process (and with such difficult topics as how to deal with TLD business failures). But I am opposed to gearing towards millions of TLDs. That is the wrong target to aim for. The DNS works precisely because it is structured as a tree, so that load is (by design) distributed widely and quickly away from a central "root". Adding millions of TLDs to the root zone undermines that fundamental design property, and I see mostly downsides with little compelling benefit in doing so. Just because we could in theory support millions of TLDs doesn't mean we need to or even should. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pr+governance at x0.dk Tue Mar 4 09:45:11 2008 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:45:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] How many TLDs? In-Reply-To: <200803041426.m24EQYoj016002@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <47CA72F4.6080608@cavebear.com> <200803041426.m24EQYoj016002@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20080304144510.GH34241@macbook.catpipe.net> Thomas Narten (narten) writes: > > All that said, I am NOT arguing that the root needs to be kept at its > current size. It could easily be expanded. Rough rules of thumb that I > have heard people suggest indicate that increasing the current size of > the root zone by two orders of magnitude could be done without any > serious issue/change to the current operations of the root zone. So, I > don't have any (technical) worries about adding tens or hundreds of > new TLDs per year, maybe more as we gain more experience with the > process (and with such difficult topics as how to deal with TLD > business failures). Very good summary of the situation. But would it be "worth it" to even bother with two orders of magnitude ? DNS scales as well as it does, in its current implementation, because it's hierarchical (as you point out yourself). Technical considerations aside, I tend to agree that having an unlimited number of TLDs *in the current state of things* certainly wouldn't be ideal. Now, I don't want to go into a "what-if" discussion, but one could imagine other mechanisms, such as peer-to-peer resolution, where DNS wasn't centralized, with no real root to speak of (or, rather, a "core" of trusted servers with a first-come first-serve registration model). Unlikely, but the mental exercise is interesting, if only to try and see where this push for more TLDs will eventually lead. Phil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Mar 4 10:12:52 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:12:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing Message-ID: This horse bolted several years ago, I'm just saying the next chance to try to lasso is at the pass ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> suresh at hserus.net 03/04/08 9:18 AM >>> Lee McKnight wrote: > > I suggest seeking redress in the next phase, ie, as a civil society > requirement for the post-IGF period. > Try catching the horse after its bolted, you mean? Yes, that's an option. I'm all for consolidating what gains we do have, and focusing on our strengths though. suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 4 11:52:34 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:22:34 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available In-Reply-To: <4C1DE038-FD0C-40E5-8EFA-7622532267EC@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080304165243.BC1B4E2BFA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Avri > > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to > > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making > > function, we > > need to differentiate ourselves from it. > > This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by > definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance > policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the > policy making process? Yes, what you state is more or less my position. Though being 'central to policy making', and being 'responsible' for it, is not really to be entirely the 'other to policy making process'. Policy making processes - which is the entire political realm of our social life - is a nuanced and complex area, and CS has important roles in this. But not 'central', and it cannot be 'responsible' for policy making. That's a governance institution. Lets approach it another way. What do YOU mean when use the term CS? Either we don't use the term CS, at least not use it as much as we do , not use in the name of the group under which we organize, or we do associate some meaning to this term. Don't you think that this is a simple and an obvious proposition. And if you do, may I ask what meaning you associate with the term 'CS'. Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be > affected by policy and never the maker of policy? > > Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches > its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance > policy. Wittgenstein used to say - if you understand my philosophy it is then of no use to you, it may even be meaningless to you. It's the same with an ideal democracy. All citizens become fully and integral parts of governance and policy. They will be THE government. CS would have reached its capabilities and become an integral part of the governance policy. (All businesses will only be practicing altruism, and complete public interest). The term CS would lose its meaning. Yes, then their will no longer be these silly political categories. Meanwhile, to deal with these imperfect times we have these imperfect devices of organizing non-governance bodies and non-business groups to fight for public interest vis a vis those who hold huge institutionalized social power, which is always suspect to abuse. We call these organizations as CS. And in its political work it becomes important for CS generally, and these CS organizations, specifically, to define itself/ themselves vis a vis the institutions whose abuse of power it seeks to check. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:01 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > > On 3 Mar 2008, at 17:45, Parminder wrote: > > > > >>> 'ICANN is CS' > >> > >> well they are a non profit NGO. > >> > >> and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS. > > > > Avri > > > > And you expect us to ignore the fact that when ICANN had the choice to > > register either as civil society entity or as business sector entity > > for > > WSIS it registered as a business sector entity :) So all this > > defense of > > ICANN as CS may be a case of being 'more loyal than the king'. > > Though we all > > agree that ICANN is a new kind of an organization and did not fit into > > existing UN classification. There is no class there for a global > > governance > > body which is not inter-governmental. But that doesn't make it into > > a CS > > entity, it makes it into a global governance entity. > > I don't think I have any expectations about what should ignore or > not. And as I said it really doesn't matter what they registered as > at the end of the day. > All I am trying to point out is that there are lots of definitions and > definitions and self associations vary over time. I have no interest > in whether ICANN is CS or not and am really only used them as an > example. i could have spoke about ISOC or W3C if I had wanted. what > I am saying is that it is debatable, once we get into arguing > definitions, whether a non-profit NGO is a CS is or it isn't. And > with multistakeholder organizations, i think it is difficult to peg > them down. > > > > > > > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to > > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making > > function, we > > need to differentiate ourselves from it. > > This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by > definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance > policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the > policy making process? Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be > affected by policy and never the maker of policy? > > Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches > its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance > policy. > > > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Mar 5 00:33:43 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:33:43 -0500 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF Message-ID: Sorry Parminder, I just don't buy the 'cs can't govern' logic you lay out. CS cannot be government, but there's more to governance than that. Your logic would lead to the conclusion that an Internet Governance Forum with governance/oversight responsibility is impossible, which I don;t believe is your belief. Though others might. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/04/08 11:52 AM >>> Avri > > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to > > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making > > function, we > > need to differentiate ourselves from it. > > This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by > definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance > policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the > policy making process? Yes, what you state is more or less my position. Though being 'central to policy making', and being 'responsible' for it, is not really to be entirely the 'other to policy making process'. Policy making processes - which is the entire political realm of our social life - is a nuanced and complex area, and CS has important roles in this. But not 'central', and it cannot be 'responsible' for policy making. That's a governance institution. Lets approach it another way. What do YOU mean when use the term CS? Either we don't use the term CS, at least not use it as much as we do , not use in the name of the group under which we organize, or we do associate some meaning to this term. Don't you think that this is a simple and an obvious proposition. And if you do, may I ask what meaning you associate with the term 'CS'. Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be > affected by policy and never the maker of policy? > > Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches > its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance > policy. Wittgenstein used to say - if you understand my philosophy it is then of no use to you, it may even be meaningless to you. It's the same with an ideal democracy. All citizens become fully and integral parts of governance and policy. They will be THE government. CS would have reached its capabilities and become an integral part of the governance policy. (All businesses will only be practicing altruism, and complete public interest). The term CS would lose its meaning. Yes, then their will no longer be these silly political categories. Meanwhile, to deal with these imperfect times we have these imperfect devices of organizing non-governance bodies and non-business groups to fight for public interest vis a vis those who hold huge institutionalized social power, which is always suspect to abuse. We call these organizations as CS. And in its political work it becomes important for CS generally, and these CS organizations, specifically, to define itself/ themselves vis a vis the institutions whose abuse of power it seeks to check. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:01 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG > available > > > On 3 Mar 2008, at 17:45, Parminder wrote: > > > > >>> 'ICANN is CS' > >> > >> well they are a non profit NGO. > >> > >> and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS. > > > > Avri > > > > And you expect us to ignore the fact that when ICANN had the choice to > > register either as civil society entity or as business sector entity > > for > > WSIS it registered as a business sector entity :) So all this > > defense of > > ICANN as CS may be a case of being 'more loyal than the king'. > > Though we all > > agree that ICANN is a new kind of an organization and did not fit into > > existing UN classification. There is no class there for a global > > governance > > body which is not inter-governmental. But that doesn't make it into > > a CS > > entity, it makes it into a global governance entity. > > I don't think I have any expectations about what should ignore or > not. And as I said it really doesn't matter what they registered as > at the end of the day. > All I am trying to point out is that there are lots of definitions and > definitions and self associations vary over time. I have no interest > in whether ICANN is CS or not and am really only used them as an > example. i could have spoke about ISOC or W3C if I had wanted. what > I am saying is that it is debatable, once we get into arguing > definitions, whether a non-profit NGO is a CS is or it isn't. And > with multistakeholder organizations, i think it is difficult to peg > them down. > > > > > > > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to > > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making > > function, we > > need to differentiate ourselves from it. > > This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by > definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance > policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the > policy making process? Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be > affected by policy and never the maker of policy? > > Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches > its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance > policy. > > > 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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx Wed Mar 5 01:01:45 2008 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:01:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <20080304165243.BC1B4E2BFA@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080304165243.BC1B4E2BFA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, this may be the last email I send in response to your sequence of ever more explicit explanations of your positions. The latest element you provide is - if I recall well - the last one that had been nagging us for long but hadn't been put so clearly in the after-MAG-meeting period. Despite your recurrently admitted lack of knowledge and understanding of the organizations you propose to oppose (sometimes ICANN alone, sometimes a larger collection, though admirably never those who deny civil society access and participation), what you intend to do is tantamount to establishing a tribunal to judge them, on a very precarious base, in an assumption of culpability (of crimes yet to be determined but, as you emphasize, "suspicious" already) instead of an assumption of innocence as fair-trial rules demand the world over, and, as much as possible, in absentia. This unfortunately also resonates with a view that you embrace in the construction of your views the functional equivalent of a sectarian attitude, despite Milton's long - and ineffectual - tirade on the application of the adjective. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote: > Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:22:34 +0530 > From: Parminder > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: "bridge", > was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available > > Avri > >>> ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to >>> extracting accountability in relation to their policy making >>> function, we >>> need to differentiate ourselves from it. >> >> This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by >> definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance >> policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the >> policy making process? > > Yes, what you state is more or less my position. Though being 'central to > policy making', and being 'responsible' for it, is not really to be entirely > the 'other to policy making process'. Policy making processes - which is the > entire political realm of our social life - is a nuanced and complex area, > and CS has important roles in this. But not 'central', and it cannot be > 'responsible' for policy making. That's a governance institution. > > Lets approach it another way. What do YOU mean when use the term CS? Either > we don't use the term CS, at least not use it as much as we do , not use in > the name of the group under which we organize, or we do associate some > meaning to this term. Don't you think that this is a simple and an obvious > proposition. And if you do, may I ask what meaning you associate with the > term 'CS'. > > Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be >> affected by policy and never the maker of policy? > >> >> Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches >> its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance >> policy. > > Wittgenstein used to say - if you understand my philosophy it is then of no > use to you, it may even be meaningless to you. It's the same with an ideal > democracy. All citizens become fully and integral parts of governance and > policy. They will be THE government. CS would have reached its capabilities > and become an integral part of the governance policy. (All businesses will > only be practicing altruism, and complete public interest). The term CS > would lose its meaning. Yes, then their will no longer be these silly > political categories. > > Meanwhile, to deal with these imperfect times we have these imperfect > devices of organizing non-governance bodies and non-business groups to fight > for public interest vis a vis those who hold huge institutionalized social > power, which is always suspect to abuse. We call these organizations as CS. > And in its political work it becomes important for CS generally, and these > CS organizations, specifically, to define itself/ themselves vis a vis the > institutions whose abuse of power it seeks to check. > > Parminder > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:01 AM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG >> available >> >> >> On 3 Mar 2008, at 17:45, Parminder wrote: >> >>> >>>>> 'ICANN is CS' >>>> >>>> well they are a non profit NGO. >>>> >>>> and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS. >>> >>> Avri >>> >>> And you expect us to ignore the fact that when ICANN had the choice to >>> register either as civil society entity or as business sector entity >>> for >>> WSIS it registered as a business sector entity :) So all this >>> defense of >>> ICANN as CS may be a case of being 'more loyal than the king'. >>> Though we all >>> agree that ICANN is a new kind of an organization and did not fit into >>> existing UN classification. There is no class there for a global >>> governance >>> body which is not inter-governmental. But that doesn't make it into >>> a CS >>> entity, it makes it into a global governance entity. >> >> I don't think I have any expectations about what should ignore or >> not. And as I said it really doesn't matter what they registered as >> at the end of the day. >> All I am trying to point out is that there are lots of definitions and >> definitions and self associations vary over time. I have no interest >> in whether ICANN is CS or not and am really only used them as an >> example. i could have spoke about ISOC or W3C if I had wanted. what >> I am saying is that it is debatable, once we get into arguing >> definitions, whether a non-profit NGO is a CS is or it isn't. And >> with multistakeholder organizations, i think it is difficult to peg >> them down. >> >>> >>> >>> ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to >>> extracting accountability in relation to their policy making >>> function, we >>> need to differentiate ourselves from it. >> >> This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by >> definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance >> policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the >> policy making process? Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be >> affected by policy and never the maker of policy? >> >> Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches >> its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance >> policy. >> >> >> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Mar 5 01:37:46 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:37:46 +0300 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Lee McKnight wrote: > Sorry Parminder, I just don't buy the 'cs can't govern' logic you lay > out. CS cannot be government, but there's more to governance than that. In my world. CS does make policy. Bottom. Netizens govern. > > Your logic would lead to the conclusion that an Internet Governance > Forum with governance/oversight responsibility is impossible, which I > don;t believe is your belief. Though others might. Impossible. No. Undesirable. Oh yeah. Not part of mandate. -- 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 Wed Mar 5 11:10:15 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:10:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial Message-ID: <000201c87edb$6744f850$b10110ac@michael78xnoln> Hello colleagues: I've agreed to pull together a section on "Discrimination in the Information Economy" for the CS statement to the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June. I've done up several very general statements as placeholders but I know that there are individuals on this list with specific expertise in these areas and I would very much appreciate if they could redo what I've done and as well add appropriate referencing to previous CS documents, standards, appropriate websites etc. If people could send their comments to me individually indicating which numbered section they are referring to, I'll compile them and recirculate them. I've agreed to do a final by Monday at the latest so speed is of the essence. (This is a bit of a last minute job so I'm not sure how much debate on wording will actually be possible so please if comments could be made as "generic" from a CS perspective as possible that would be great. Among the barriers to equitable participation are: 1.physical disability which interferes with the opportunity to make use of the input/output devices through which the digital platform is access. Such disabilities might include visual disabilities (the inability to read or interpret messages on a screen) as for example arising from blindness, colour blindness or other forms of visual impairment. There are a variety of well recognized standards for the design of web interfaces which enable utilization of these sites by those with visual disabilities but these standards are for the most part voluntary and frequently are ignored or overlooked. The enforcement of these standards particularly in government sites or site which are supportive of public participation, provide public services, or are overall in the realm of "public activities" should become mandatory and means for their enforcement should be developed. 2.levels of literacy may be required by certain digitally enabled activities which act as discriminants for those with lower levels of education, cognitive abilities or limited facility with the language being used on the site. Similarly as with visual disabilities standards exist for determining the level of literacy required for utilization of specific sites and these should be formally adopted and means developed for their enforcement particularly in those sites necessary for social, political and economic functioning in the Information Society 3.differential access to the use of the Internet because of barriers of cost of access (Internet access costs or costs of the input/output devices themselves (personal computers for example). Many of those currently not using the Internet (as understood by means of the concept of the "Digital Divide") are not doing so because of the cost of this service. Ensuring that publicly accessible services at no or nominal cost is a minimum basis for ensuring equitable participation in the Information Society. 4.related to the financial barrier of access may be the barriers of physical disability in limiting access to places where no or minimal cost Internet access may be available. Many of those with physical disabilities also have very low incomes so the opportunity to use the Internet (or other ICTs) may only come through public Internet access points (PIAPs). If these PIAPs are themselves not accessible because of physical barriers (as for example not being wheel chair accessible), then the opportunity to participate is doubly restricted. 5.further, many of those also who do not make use of the Internet may not be doing so because of a lack of knowledge or personal confidence with respect to the means for making such use. This would be particularly the case for the elderly and those with lower levels of education. The barrier of confidence or skill with respect to Internet use may be overcome through the availability of training or support services in the context of the PIAPs and thus publicly supported means for providing this training (it is frequently done through support of volunteers or student interns) is a further means for ensuring that discriminatory barriers do not exist for Internet participation. 6. Equitable gender access to ICT has been linked to an increase in overall social equality for women; however, within numerous global contexts-including those of Developed Countries-gender disparities in access to ICT persist, and women predominate the lower-wage sectors of the information economy. Women also are under-represented in ICT decision-making capacities. Gender is one of many factors that determine the impact of ICT on women's lives. Ethnicity, religion, age, physical ability, and socio-economic status also figure into the degrees of inclusion and exclusion that differentiate regions and communities. Key to overcoming the barriers, shortcomings and misconceptions that exacerbate gender inequalities in ICT are the comprehensive education of all persons regardless of gender, the promotion of equal access for women to scientific and technological arenas, the provision of opportunities for lifelong learning in ICT, and the augmentation of women's roles in ICT decision-making. Governments should enable equal access and opportunity for all via policies and programs as well as collaborate more broadly with the private sector and civil society to change social attitudes, cultural ideologies, and stereotypes that limit women's participation in the digital economy. 7. in many circumstances there are additional difficulties (and costs) in obtaining access to the means for participation in the digital economy by those living in remote, rural, or low-income areas. The cost of the provision of enhanced (broadband for example) infrastructures in such areas may lead to gaps in access in these areas if the service provision is only left to market considerations. In order to ensure that there is no discrimination or additional barriers to participation on the part of rural and remote residents it may be necessary for public authorities to intervene to find means to balance costs as between locales. 8. Individuals' relationship with access providers or their business partners may also be a source for discrimination against particular users. Vertical integration of access provision with other products, content, and services may lead access providers to engage in tying behaviors, such as blocking or degrading competitors' services. Competition and communications authorities should act to prevent such behavior. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Wed Mar 5 08:44:46 2008 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:44:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears By Adam Liptak The New York Times Tuesday 04 March 2008 Steve Marshall is an English travel agent. He lives in Spain, and he sells trips to Europeans who want to go to sunny places, including Cuba. In October, about 80 of his Web sites stopped working, thanks to the United States government. The sites, in English, French and Spanish, had been online since 1998. Some, like www.cuba-hemingway.com, were literary. Others, like www.cuba-havanacity.com, discussed Cuban history and culture. Still others - www.ciaocuba.com and www.bonjourcuba.com - were purely commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists. "I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at all," Mr. Marshall said on the phone from the Canary Islands. "We thought it was a technical problem." It turned out, though, that Mr. Marshall's Web sites had been put on a Treasury Department blacklist and, as a consequence, his American domain name registrar, eNom Inc., had disabled them. Mr. Marshall said eNom told him it did so after a call from the Treasury Department; the company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it learned that the sites were on the blacklist through a blog. Either way, there is no dispute that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall's sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain names to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, eNom has taken his property and interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his Web business over the last several months, and now many of the same sites operate with the suffix .net rather than .com, through a European registrar. His servers, he said, have been in the Bahamas all along. Mr. Marshall said he did not understand "how Web sites owned by a British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be affected by U.S. law." Worse, he said, "these days not even a judge is required for the U.S. government to censor online materials." A Treasury spokesman, John Rankin, referred a caller to a press release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. It said Mr. Marshall's company had helped Americans evade restrictions on travel to Cuba and was "a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people." It added that American companies must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to do. Mr. Marshall said he was uninterested in American tourists. "They can't go anyway," he said. Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University in Florida who has studied the blacklist - which the Treasury calls a list of "specially designated nationals" - said its operation was quite mysterious. "There really is no explanation or standard," he said, "for why someone gets on the list." Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name registrars are based in the United States gives the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, control "over a great deal of speech - none of which may be actually hosted in the U.S., about the U.S. or conflicting with any U.S. rights." "OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech disappear," Professor Crawford said. The law under which the Treasury Department is acting has an exemption, known as the Berman Amendment, which seeks to protect "information or informational materials." Mr. Marshall's Web sites, though ultimately commercial, would seem to qualify, and it is not clear why they appear on the list. Unlike Americans, who face significant restrictions on travel to Cuba, Europeans are free to go there, and many do. Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York, said the Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr. Marshall's case. "The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S. citizens in Cuba," Mr. Sims said, "but it doesn't properly have any jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and which are lawful under foreign law." Mr. Rankin, the Treasury spokesman, said Mr. Marshall was free to ask for a review of his case. "If they want to be taken off the list," Mr. Rankin said, "they should contact us to make their case." That is a problematic system, Professor Fitzgerald said. "The way to get off the list," he said, "is to go back to the same bureaucrat who put you on." Last March, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights issued a disturbing report on the OFAC list. Its subtitle: "How a Treasury Department Terrorist Watch List Ensnares Everyday Consumers." The report, by Shirin Sinnar, said that there were 6,400 names on the list and that, like no-fly lists at airports, it gave rise to endless and serious problems of mistaken identity. "Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, car dealerships, health insurers, landlords and employers," the report said, "are now checking names against the list before they open an account, close a sale, rent an apartment or offer a job." But Mr. Marshall's case does not appear to be one of mistaken identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere with his business. That, Professor Crawford said, is a scandal. "The way we communicate these days is through domain names, and the Treasury Department should not be interfering with domain names just as it does not interfere with telecommunications lines." Curiously, the Treasury Department has not shut down all of Mr. Marshall's .com sites. You can still find, for now, www.cuba-guantanamo.com. -------- Online: Documents and an archive of Adam Liptak's articles: nytimes.com/adamliptak. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 5 09:35:38 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:35:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for In-Reply-To: <000201c87edb$6744f850$b10110ac@michael78xnoln> References: <000201c87edb$6744f850$b10110ac@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080305143538.GA6844@hserus.net> Michael Gurstein [05/03/08 08:10 -0800]: > >Hello colleagues: > >I've agreed to pull together a section on "Discrimination in the Information >Economy" for the CS statement to the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June. > On the ICT4D for disabled theme - I would suggest that you contact my good friend Dr.Arun Mehta. He's developed something called eLocutor, that's quite useful for this (and in fact it was designed for Stephen Hawking to replace the rather older software that he uses, though not sure if Prof.Hawking has started using that yet). http://www.radiophony.com/html_files/hawking.html I believe the IT4Change people would know him very well indeed .. thanks suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Wed Mar 5 09:38:24 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:38:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> Message-ID: <20080305143824.GB6844@hserus.net> Riaz K Tayob [05/03/08 14:44 +0100]: > A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears > By Adam Liptak > The New York Times Can you please stick to something on topic. Or at least take the trouble to add editorial commentary or your views on how far this is relevant, rather than simply forward articles on. Though, come to think of it, your entire editorial commentary back in that panel of Milton's you were on at the first IGF was simply to criticize the bush administration rather than make any valid points (yes, the bush administration has a lot to be criticized for, but your contribution on that panel was simply criticizing bush when you werent quoting Milton Mueller like his statements were gospel.. something I heckled you for from the floor if you remember). 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Mar 5 09:46:21 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:46:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <20080305143824.GB6844@hserus.net> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <20080305143824.GB6844@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20080305144621.GA19845@nic.fr> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 06:38:24AM -0800, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote a message of 26 lines which said: > Can you please stick to something on topic. Or at least take the > trouble to add editorial commentary or your views on how far this is > relevant, It was about free speech and the use of an Internet technical intermediary, a DNS registrar to limit it. Difficult to be more on topic... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 5 10:05:16 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:35:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <20080305144621.GA19845@nic.fr> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <20080305143824.GB6844@hserus.net> <20080305144621.GA19845@nic.fr> Message-ID: <02a901c87ed2$53ebbf90$fbc33eb0$@net> Yes it was. I simply asked him to add some editorial commentary rather than simply forwarding articles over, which has been the sole extent of his "contributions" to the list so far. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Re: A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech > Disappears > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 06:38:24AM -0800, > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote > a message of 26 lines which said: > > > Can you please stick to something on topic. Or at least take the > > trouble to add editorial commentary or your views on how far this is > > relevant, > > It was about free speech and the use of an Internet technical > intermediary, a DNS registrar to limit it. Difficult to be more on > topic... > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Wed Mar 5 11:08:49 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:08:49 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Dear Suresh -- Oh, dear, that comment does sound in and of itself like attempted censorship. The NYTimes article was interesting, news to me, and demonstrated (contrary to what I had thought) that the USG has used its I'net oversight powers for a form of censorship. I thought it was a perfectly valid piece of info to put on the list, and certainly more interesting than a lot of the personal backbiting that sometimes makes me want the list to just go away somewhere else. Best regards, Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 5 11:19:12 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:49:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> Oh, I am not about to censor discussion of the issues at all. It is an interesting discussion - doing business, or not, with Iran, Cuba and some other nations proscribed by the USG versus this case here, which affects parties from totally unrelated nations that happen to host their domain in the USA, with a US based registrar. There are also previous cases like wikileaks.org recently, and well before that, Indymedia some years back. So this is not a very new issue as such. It is a known issue, and one that would probably persist even after the ITU, or the IGF, or the MAG, or whichever other new three letter organization ends up running the show .. because of a simple principle, sovereignity of a country. What you had was DoC contacting a US business (a registrar based in the USA) and telling them about this issue, demanding a takedown. OK, so some bureaucrat didn't apply his mind very much to this case. Point granted here. But that was a US bureaucrat sending a notice to a US based company. Addressing this first depends on the amount of spine that the registrar actually has. And then needs to be addressed by this guy suing the registrar + USG for this unintended extra territorial application of US law (unless he sold a US citizen a vacation in cuba or something, but even then, extra territorial). This at least can (and should) be challenged in court, as this entity is arguably not doing business in a location that should be affected by prohibitions on doing business with cuba. From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Dear Suresh -- Oh, dear, that comment does sound in and of itself like attempted censorship. The NYTimes article was interesting, news to me, and demonstrated (contrary to what I had thought) that the USG has used its I'net oversight powers for a form of censorship. I thought it was a perfectly valid piece of info to put on the list, and certainly more interesting than a lot of the personal backbiting that sometimes makes me want the list to just go away somewhere else. Best regards, Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Mar 5 11:27:14 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:27:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Upcoming Forum in preparation by FAO for WSIS Follow up meetings Message-ID: <200803051627.m25GREea023464@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to inform you about an initiative taken by FAO as part of the WSIS action line follow up on E-Agriculture. The FAO on-line discussion Forum on Public Private Partnership in Asia will take place between 10 and 28 March 2008 on www.e-agriculture.org . Find more information below. Best, Philippe ================================================================== Making e-Agriculture Work through Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Asia Sponsored by Katalyst and FAO. Moderated by Katalyst, a multi-donor funded market development project implemented by Swisscontact, the Swiss Foundation for Technical Cooperation and co-implemented by GTZ-International Services. A Global Knowledge Partnership Event. www.e-agriculture.org will host a special online forum on the Role of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) starting 10 March 2008. Areas which will be explored include: The scope of Public Private Partnerships to implement e-Agriculture successfully; Understanding the major & common constraints in PPP based on past experiences and current practices; Suggestions and solutions to overcome the challenges and focus on bringing practical solutions; and the roles of stakeholders: government, private sector, and others. Subject Matter Experts Participating include: - M. Asaduzzaman, Research Director, Agriculture and Rural Development, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) - Amit Dasgupta, General Manager, IBM Global Services India - Philip DesAutels, Academic Evangelist, Microsoft Corporation - Naimur Rahman, Director, OneWorld South Asia - Sunit Shrestha, Director, TNR Institute, Thailand Moderated by: - Manish Pandey, Deputy General Manager of Katalyst - Michael Riggs, Information Management Specialist, FAO - Charlotte Masiello-Riome, World Summit on the Information Society Communications Focal Point, e-agriculture and e-agriculture.org Coordinator This Forum is a lead up to the e-Agriculture INDIA 2008 Conference to be held in New Dehli, India 29-31 July 2008. Outcomes will also be reported to the World Summit on the Information Society Follow Up Action meetings to be held in May 2008. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 5 12:47:47 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:47:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ronald, On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:08 PM, wrote: > Dear Suresh -- > > Oh, dear, that comment does sound in and of itself like attempted > censorship. > > The NYTimes article was interesting, news to me, and demonstrated (contrary > to what I had thought) that the USG has used its I'net oversight powers for > a form of censorship. I think you misunderstand the mechanism used in this case. This one had nothing to do with the root zone (but we always seem to come back to it, for some reason). I thought it was a perfectly valid piece of info to > put on the list, and certainly more interesting than a lot of the personal > backbiting that sometimes makes me want the list to just go away somewhere > else. probably true(about the backbiting), but if everyone on this list posted everything that they came across which was somehow to do with IG, well, I suspect we would all unsubscribe. Suresh is right, fwding random things without editorial content is, well, annoying. Of course, I have a haiku for this thread as well; Bush. Censorship. Wow. IGF can stop this how? Sovereignty. Sucks. -- 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 Wed Mar 5 13:25:22 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:25:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <000201c87edb$6744f850$b10110ac@michael78xnoln> References: <000201c87edb$6744f850$b10110ac@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: Thanks for organizing this material. One suggestion: On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > 1.physical disability Even though the phrase 'physical disability' is in common use, it is quite exclusive and perhaps even discriminatory. The phrase 'physical disability' omits all the accommodations that are useful to people with emotional, cognitive and intellectual disabilities. I'd suggest either using no modifier at all, or 'personal disability', 'individual disability' ... 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 avri at psg.com Wed Mar 5 13:56:52 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:56:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5112C06C-7985-4CBF-941B-09003BBC67DD@psg.com> On 5 Mar 2008, at 12:47, McTim wrote: > but if everyone on this list > posted everything that they came across which was somehow to do with > IG, well, I suspect we would all unsubscribe. Suresh is right, fwding > random things without editorial content is, well, annoying. well. that was a good ad absurdum argument. but sometimes just posting something without comment seems to be enough of an editorial comment. or does one need to say: "sent without comment:" in order for the absence of comment to be a comment? 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 Wed Mar 5 14:10:58 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:10:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/5/08 6:47 PM, "McTim" wrote: > Of course, I have a haiku for this thread as well; > > Bush. Censorship. Wow. > IGF can stop this how? > Sovereignty. Sucks. Trade you two zen koans for your haiku: What is the sound of one site crashing? Use the cable that is in your empty hand. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Mar 5 15:19:52 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:19:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: <353681.11946.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> It wasn't the powers the Department of Commerce has that were used here. They were completely different from what I can tell, and it was powers the Department of Treasury has, so a different arm of government and different powers in use. I wouldn't say it has to do with the spine of the registrar or the registrant either. Not everyone has the time and money needed to challenge orders like this. And maybe they, or maybe they didn't too, took legal advice and it wasn't favourable. And the main problem with just posting articles to me is when full articles are posted it's a blatant breach of copyright. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KovenRonald at aol.com Sent: Thursday, 6 March, 2008 3:19:12 AM Subject: RE: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Oh, I am not about to censor discussion of the issues at all. It is an interesting discussion – doing business, or not, with Iran, Cuba and some other nations proscribed by the USG versus this case here, which affects parties from totally unrelated nations that happen to host their domain in the USA, with a US based registrar. There are also previous cases like wikileaks.org recently, and well before that, Indymedia some years back. So this is not a very new issue as such. It is a known issue, and one that would probably persist even after the ITU, or the IGF, or the MAG, or whichever other new three letter organization ends up running the show .. because of a simple principle, sovereignity of a country. What you had was DoC contacting a US business (a registrar based in the USA) and telling them about this issue, demanding a takedown. OK, so some bureaucrat didn’t apply his mind very much to this case. Point granted here. But that was a US bureaucrat sending a notice to a US based company. Addressing this first depends on the amount of spine that the registrar actually has. And then needs to be addressed by this guy suing the registrar + USG for this unintended extra territorial application of US law (unless he sold a US citizen a vacation in cuba or something, but even then, extra territorial). This at least can (and should) be challenged in court, as this entity is arguably not doing business in a location that should be affected by prohibitions on doing business with cuba. From: KovenRonald at aol.com[mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and SpeechDisappears Dear Suresh -- Oh, dear, that comment does sound in and of itself like attempted censorship. The NYTimes article was interesting, news to me, and demonstrated (contrary towhat I had thought) that the USG has used its I'net oversight powers for a formof censorship. I thought it was a perfectly valid piece of info to put on thelist, and certainly more interesting than a lot of the personal backbiting thatsometimes makes me want the list to just go away somewhere else. Best regards, Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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/y7mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Wed Mar 5 15:36:53 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:36:53 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Wed Mar 5 15:42:24 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:42:24 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Dear All -- And there are serious US First Amendment lawyers who consider copyright to be a breach of freedom of speech. That's not a view I happen to share because I believe that copyright encourages speech by rewarding it. But I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction between posting the text of a fairly short article for the edification of a small group and the posting of a link. >From a functional viewpoint, it's what a Jesuit would call a distinction without a difference. Best regards, Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Wed Mar 5 15:45:28 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:45:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> Message-ID: <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > What you had was DoC contacting a US business (a registrar based in the > USA)... The same legal foundation that was used would also work against a registry (as opposed to a registrar) located in the US. Thus even if the registrar is not in the US, if the name is in .com then the US could use the same legal approach to apply leverage to the registry, Verisign. And since many of the large registries are in the US, that means that much of the DNS is vulnerable to this tactic. Actions like this do not promote the cohesion of the DNS but, instead, create forces tending towards splitting and fragmentation. --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 Wed Mar 5 17:24:31 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:24:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080305222431.GB27077@hserus.net> KovenRonald at aol.com [05/03/08 15:42 -0500]: >believe that copyright encourages speech by rewarding it. But I'm having a >hard time understanding the distinction between posting the text of a fairly >short article for the edification of a small group and the posting of a link. A lot of that has evolved into a fairly common rule of "netiquette" about forwarding relevant parts or snippets from the article, with editorial comment. That brings it within the "fair use" principles of copyright law. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Mar 5 19:06:17 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:06:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF: 30 April deadline for submission of proposals / 13 May next Open Consultation Message-ID: <9820302B-7C8C-44AA-8638-ABD0A6CB50BD@ipjustice.org> Some new info from the IGF website below. Note: Workshop proposals due 30 April 2008 and next Open Consultation is 13 May 2008. [NEW] A summary report of the MAG meeting is available. [NEW] The summary report contains a call for workshops, best practice forums and open forums. Deadline for the submission of proposals: 30 April 2008. More details will be made available in due course. [NEW] All stakeholders are invited to submit their comments on the draft schedules (programme outline contained the summary report of the MAG meeting. All contributions will be posted on the IGF Web site and a discussion thread is available in the Forum Section. A revised version of schedule/programme outline, reflecting the online discussions within the MAG and the comments received, will be made available prior to the next consultations. [NEW] The next round of open consultations will take place on 13 May 2008, as part of the WSIS cluster of events It will be followed by a MAG meeting on 14-15 May. http://www.intgovforum.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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Mar 5 21:33:43 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:33:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050803051833x6ea6a128y8679a0cab408365f@mail.gmail.com> Dear Colleagues, and Thomas, well met: All in a proverbial "one fell e-swoop," may I greet Tom and thank him for: the terrific, well organized and motivating presentation on .nyc at the recent 5th Grassroots media conference at Hunter College; the follow-up his email to those of us attending (of course, from here welcome to reference names as participating enthusiastically), and the very lively and inquiring chat on all sorts of aspects of domain names, *ranging from ontological to fiscal*. Some links to pictures and short videos to follow. And with warm regards and best wishes to All, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* and etc.. On 2/28/08, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > Top level domains (TLDs) like .com, .org, .edu, and .gov are crucial > markers in our online world, but there are not enough of them to distinguish > the various ways in which we interact on the web. One of the clearest, most > pressing requirements is for TLDs that serve the needs of cities. To that > end, in April 2007, the not-for-profit Connecting.nyc Inc. was created to > prepare an Internet space for New York City's networked future through > advocacy, research, and education > . > > > Step one is to acquire the .nyc TLD. That opportunity should arise within > the next year with the path detailed in our Acquisition Campaign. > It's a difficult but doable task. > > > > The far more challenging task is to develop .nyc as an organizing force > to empower New York City's residents, institutions, and businesses to better > connect with one another and the world. This becomes ever more important as > other cities (.berlin and .paris) acquire TLDs, with the city's growing > invisibility in an Internet dominated by the .com TLD, and with our > "findability" increasingly dependent on the interests of search engine > operators. To be the master of its future, New York City needs its own space > on the Internet. > > > > Over the past year we've developed several resources to support our > acquisition and development campaigns. I've had the privilege of working > with Dr. Michael Gurstein on a white paper illuminating > the public interest benefits of city-TLDs, and our community wikiand > blog provide > New Yorkers with the opportunity to connect with our effort and help shape > their city's future. Links here connect to several of the wiki's pages. > > > > With the .nyc TLD a vital civic resource, we urge public participation in > our planning processes and invite you to explore and add your thoughts to > the wiki. Key wiki pages include those for our *Governance > *, *Community and Justice Goals > ,* and a *FAQ > *. > > > > You can help in several other ways: make a financial or equipment > contribution (we need a projector yesterday!), or by emailing your ideas, > questions, and suggestions to me. This Sunday (March 2) you can join us in > imagining New York City's Internet space at the Grassroots Media > Conference at Hunter College. I'll be > making a presentation entitled "A Platform for Community Media." > > > > [NOTE: Connecting.nyc Inc. is a New York State not-for-profit corporation > that is registered with the New York State Charities Bureau and has > submitted application for the IRS's 501(c)(3) tax exemption approval.] > > > > Thank you for your attention. > > > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > > > > Tom Lowenhaupt, Founder and Acting Director > > Connecting.nyc Inc > > Web -- Wiki > -- Blog > > Box 1027, Jackson Hts., NYC > > TomL at communisphere.com > > 718 639 4222 > > > > ABOUT THIS MAILING. This is the kickoff mailing for the .nyc Campaign. I'm > sending this message to the 1,546 people in my Outlook Express address book, > people I've contacted on this and other matters over the past 14 years. Many > of these names are now unfamiliar to me and I'm certain some recipients will > be scratching their heads wondering who I am and what possible relationship > or interest they have in a .nyc TLD. To those people I send my apology and > commitment to remove your name from future .nyc mailings. Or let me know > if I should remove you from my address book, period. *REMOVE ME<+tomL at communisphere.com> > .* > > [image: The .nyc Logo - Web from Grid] > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 6 00:28:34 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:58:34 +0530 Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGFMAG available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080306052843.7E29BE060B@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Sorry Parminder, I just don't buy the 'cs can't govern' logic you lay > out. Can you instead buy, governance institutions arent CS. Same thing. >CS cannot be government, but there's more to governance than that. If there were not more to governance than governance institutions, central and proper, then, well, there will be little political role for CS, isnt it. Have I ever looked to anyone here like believing that CS does not have a political role. I have said it many times here - CS has an important role to influence policy, 'participate' in policy processes, extract accountability etc but not be centrally responsible for policy making. > Your logic would lead to the conclusion that an Internet Governance > Forum with governance/oversight responsibility is impossible, which I > don;t believe is your belief. Though others might. As I read IGP's proposal IGF only was supposed to have some processes of extracting accountability ( in fact stated in even softer terms than I state it here). I have said all the way that it is a central CS function. Anyway, do you mean that you consider IGF as a CS body. Are you not extending it a bit too much here. A MS body is not a CS body, it is a MS body. Now, if IGF comes to do an actual (and centrally a) governance function, I am sure CS will NOT have a defining role (it doesn't even within the present system). And whoever does has a defining/ central role in IGF would herself be subject to CS's accountability processes, and cannot be considered as a part of CS processes, at least in terms of CS's engagements with the IGF. I don't understand why so many of who will like to be considered CS, and being a part of a CS body, are not ready to say one word about what they think CS may be, rather than just refuting any description that may be offered. We need some basis to use a term meaningfully, when it is so central to our work here. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:04 AM > To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; avri at psg.com > Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGFMAG > available > > Sorry Parminder, I just don't buy the 'cs can't govern' logic you lay > out. CS cannot be government, but there's more to governance than that. > > Your logic would lead to the conclusion that an Internet Governance > Forum with governance/oversight responsibility is impossible, which I > don;t believe is your belief. Though others might. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/04/08 11:52 AM >>> > Avri > > > > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to > > > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making > > > function, we > > > need to differentiate ourselves from it. > > > > This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by > > definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance > > policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the > > policy making process? > > Yes, what you state is more or less my position. Though being 'central > to > policy making', and being 'responsible' for it, is not really to be > entirely > the 'other to policy making process'. Policy making processes - which is > the > entire political realm of our social life - is a nuanced and complex > area, > and CS has important roles in this. But not 'central', and it cannot be > 'responsible' for policy making. That's a governance institution. > > Lets approach it another way. What do YOU mean when use the term CS? > Either > we don't use the term CS, at least not use it as much as we do , not use > in > the name of the group under which we organize, or we do associate some > meaning to this term. Don't you think that this is a simple and an > obvious > proposition. And if you do, may I ask what meaning you associate with > the > term 'CS'. > > Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be > > affected by policy and never the maker of policy? > > > > > Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches > > its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance > > policy. > > Wittgenstein used to say - if you understand my philosophy it is then of > no > use to you, it may even be meaningless to you. It's the same with an > ideal > democracy. All citizens become fully and integral parts of governance > and > policy. They will be THE government. CS would have reached its > capabilities > and become an integral part of the governance policy. (All businesses > will > only be practicing altruism, and complete public interest). The term CS > would lose its meaning. Yes, then their will no longer be these silly > political categories. > > Meanwhile, to deal with these imperfect times we have these imperfect > devices of organizing non-governance bodies and non-business groups to > fight > for public interest vis a vis those who hold huge institutionalized > social > power, which is always suspect to abuse. We call these organizations as > CS. > And in its political work it becomes important for CS generally, and > these > CS organizations, specifically, to define itself/ themselves vis a vis > the > institutions whose abuse of power it seeks to check. > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:01 AM > > To: Governance Caucus > > Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF > MAG > > available > > > > > > On 3 Mar 2008, at 17:45, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > >>> 'ICANN is CS' > > >> > > >> well they are a non profit NGO. > > >> > > >> and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as > CS. > > > > > > Avri > > > > > > And you expect us to ignore the fact that when ICANN had the choice > to > > > register either as civil society entity or as business sector entity > > > for > > > WSIS it registered as a business sector entity :) So all this > > > defense of > > > ICANN as CS may be a case of being 'more loyal than the king'. > > > Though we all > > > agree that ICANN is a new kind of an organization and did not fit > into > > > existing UN classification. There is no class there for a global > > > governance > > > body which is not inter-governmental. But that doesn't make it into > > > a CS > > > entity, it makes it into a global governance entity. > > > > I don't think I have any expectations about what should ignore or > > not. And as I said it really doesn't matter what they registered as > > at the end of the day. > > All I am trying to point out is that there are lots of definitions and > > definitions and self associations vary over time. I have no interest > > in whether ICANN is CS or not and am really only used them as an > > example. i could have spoke about ISOC or W3C if I had wanted. what > > I am saying is that it is debatable, once we get into arguing > > definitions, whether a non-profit NGO is a CS is or it isn't. And > > with multistakeholder organizations, i think it is difficult to peg > > them down. > > > > > > > > > > > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to > > > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making > > > function, we > > > need to differentiate ourselves from it. > > > > This is the more interesting statement to me. Are you saying that by > > definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance > > policy? Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the > > policy making process? Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be > > affected by policy and never the maker of policy? > > > > Personally I hope not. In my political philosophy, CS only reaches > > its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance > > policy. > > > > > > 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 peter at peter-dambier.de Thu Mar 6 05:04:27 2008 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:04:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CFC1AB.4050608@peter-dambier.de> Hi all, I have seen things like a company in the us, consisting of lawyers mostly, registered the name "yoga" and tried to sue indian sites about yoga. They closed a lot of small free sites and only the big and money earning sites survived. So copyright definitely has censored free speech. Although the big sites succeeded to fight back, the small ones are still missing and probably will never come back because the people who did run them have closed shop and cleared the servers. Same goes for the name "reiki" to mention just two of them. >From the german pirates party I know we have been looking into the barrel of Disney's elevated shotgun. Only they know - Stoertebaker is older than Disney :) I guess everybody who is running a well frequented site has at lest once in his live had the pleasure to chat with somebody elses lawyer. Kind regards Peter Dambier KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > Dear All -- > > And there are serious US First Amendment lawyers who consider copyright > to be a breach of freedom of speech. That's not a view I happen to share > because I believe that copyright encourages speech by rewarding it. But > I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction between posting the > text of a fairly short article for the edification of a small group and > the posting of a link. From a functional viewpoint, it's what a Jesuit > would call a distinction without a difference. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > > ************** > It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. > (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Mar 6 10:45:04 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:45:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> Message-ID: <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> Our discussion on net neutrality (and on freedom of expression, of course) ought to take issues such as this into account as well. Every gTLD domain name holder might be at risk of having their basic rights violated. I wonder what the US government could (or will) do with "suspicious", in their view, .org domain names... It is a scandal, says Susan Crawford, but violations of this kind will continue, in the name of "State security", wherever the affected servers are, wherever the domain name holders are... In the ongoing debates about Icann internationalization and its current vulnerabilities, some defend the idea that gTLDs should be left as a problem of the USA -- unfortunately, people outside the USA, being risk-takers, have purchased millions of these domains, so the issue goes far beyond the US borders. --c.a. Riaz K Tayob wrote: > A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears > By Adam Liptak > The New York Times > > Tuesday 04 March 2008 > > Steve Marshall is an English travel agent. He lives in Spain, and he > sells trips to Europeans who want to go to sunny places, including Cuba. > In October, about 80 of his Web sites stopped working, thanks to the > United States government. > > The sites, in English, French and Spanish, had been online since > 1998. Some, like www.cuba-hemingway.com, were literary. Others, like > www.cuba-havanacity.com, discussed Cuban history and culture. Still > others - www.ciaocuba.com and www.bonjourcuba.com - were purely > commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists. > > "I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at all," > Mr. Marshall said on the phone from the Canary Islands. "We thought it > was a technical problem." > > It turned out, though, that Mr. Marshall's Web sites had been put on > a Treasury Department blacklist and, as a consequence, his American > domain name registrar, eNom Inc., had disabled them. Mr. Marshall said > eNom told him it did so after a call from the Treasury Department; the > company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it learned that the sites were > on the blacklist through a blog. > > Either way, there is no dispute that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall's > sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain names > to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, eNom has taken his property and > interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his Web business > over the last several months, and now many of the same sites operate > with the suffix .net rather than .com, through a European registrar. His > servers, he said, have been in the Bahamas all along. > > Mr. Marshall said he did not understand "how Web sites owned by a > British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be affected > by U.S. law." Worse, he said, "these days not even a judge is required > for the U.S. government to censor online materials." > > A Treasury spokesman, John Rankin, referred a caller to a press > release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. > It said Mr. Marshall's company had helped Americans evade restrictions > on travel to Cuba and was "a generator of resources that the Cuban > regime uses to oppress its people." It added that American companies > must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its > assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to do. > > Mr. Marshall said he was uninterested in American tourists. "They > can't go anyway," he said. > > Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University in Florida > who has studied the blacklist - which the Treasury calls a list of > "specially designated nationals" - said its operation was quite > mysterious. "There really is no explanation or standard," he said, "for > why someone gets on the list." > > Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading > authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name > registrars are based in the United States gives the Treasury's Office of > Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, control "over a great deal of speech - > none of which may be actually hosted in the U.S., about the U.S. or > conflicting with any U.S. rights." > > "OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech disappear," > Professor Crawford said. > > The law under which the Treasury Department is acting has an > exemption, known as the Berman Amendment, which seeks to protect > "information or informational materials." Mr. Marshall's Web sites, > though ultimately commercial, would seem to qualify, and it is not clear > why they appear on the list. Unlike Americans, who face significant > restrictions on travel to Cuba, Europeans are free to go there, and many > do. Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York, said the > Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr. Marshall's case. > > "The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S. > citizens in Cuba," Mr. Sims said, "but it doesn't properly have any > jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and > which are lawful under foreign law." > > Mr. Rankin, the Treasury spokesman, said Mr. Marshall was free to ask > for a review of his case. "If they want to be taken off the list," Mr. > Rankin said, "they should contact us to make their case." > > That is a problematic system, Professor Fitzgerald said. "The way to > get off the list," he said, "is to go back to the same bureaucrat who > put you on." > > Last March, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights issued a > disturbing report on the OFAC list. Its subtitle: "How a Treasury > Department Terrorist Watch List Ensnares Everyday Consumers." > > The report, by Shirin Sinnar, said that there were 6,400 names on the > list and that, like no-fly lists at airports, it gave rise to endless > and serious problems of mistaken identity. > > "Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, car dealerships, > health insurers, landlords and employers," the report said, "are now > checking names against the list before they open an account, close a > sale, rent an apartment or offer a job." > > But Mr. Marshall's case does not appear to be one of mistaken > identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere with > his business. > > That, Professor Crawford said, is a scandal. "The way we communicate > these days is through domain names, and the Treasury Department should > not be interfering with domain names just as it does not interfere with > telecommunications lines." > > Curiously, the Treasury Department has not shut down all of Mr. > Marshall's .com sites. You can still find, for now, > www.cuba-guantanamo.com. > > -------- > > Online: Documents and an archive of Adam Liptak's articles: > nytimes.com/adamliptak. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 6 11:03:11 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:33:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> But then there are similar issues elsewhere. Try hosting neo nazi content on a domain registered with a registrar / hosted with a provider in Germany, just for example. Indymedia - cited previously - was a request from Italian law enforcement, through their MLAT with US law enforcement. It would be utterly impractical to insist that the Internet operate in a vacuum. This circleid thread has a much more informed discussion - the comment from John Berryhill below .. http://www.circleid.com/posts/83420_controversial_domain_names/ US law prohibits US companies from engaging in direct or indirect commerce with Cuba. These and other domain names were put on the OFAC list some time ago, and in fact I notified Enom and other registrars by posting the update to the ICANN Registrar Constituency list. IMHO, the US embargo is ineffective and silly, but that doesn't change the very straightforward and widely known fact that a US company is going to be subject to that embargo. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Riaz K Tayob > Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech > Disappears > > Our discussion on net neutrality (and on freedom of expression, of > course) ought to take issues such as this into account as well. Every > gTLD domain name holder might be at risk of having their basic rights > violated. I wonder what the US government could (or will) do with > "suspicious", in their view, .org domain names... > > It is a scandal, says Susan Crawford, but violations of this kind will > continue, in the name of "State security", wherever the affected > servers > are, wherever the domain name holders are... > > In the ongoing debates about Icann internationalization and its current > vulnerabilities, some defend the idea that gTLDs should be left as a > problem of the USA -- unfortunately, people outside the USA, being > risk-takers, have purchased millions of these domains, so the issue > goes > far beyond the US borders. > > --c.a. > > Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears > > By Adam Liptak > > The New York Times > > > > Tuesday 04 March 2008 > > > > Steve Marshall is an English travel agent. He lives in Spain, and > he > > sells trips to Europeans who want to go to sunny places, including > Cuba. > > In October, about 80 of his Web sites stopped working, thanks to the > > United States government. > > > > The sites, in English, French and Spanish, had been online since > > 1998. Some, like www.cuba-hemingway.com, were literary. Others, like > > www.cuba-havanacity.com, discussed Cuban history and culture. Still > > others - www.ciaocuba.com and www.bonjourcuba.com - were purely > > commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists. > > > > "I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at > all," > > Mr. Marshall said on the phone from the Canary Islands. "We thought > it > > was a technical problem." > > > > It turned out, though, that Mr. Marshall's Web sites had been put > on > > a Treasury Department blacklist and, as a consequence, his American > > domain name registrar, eNom Inc., had disabled them. Mr. Marshall > said > > eNom told him it did so after a call from the Treasury Department; > the > > company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it learned that the sites > were > > on the blacklist through a blog. > > > > Either way, there is no dispute that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall's > > sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain > names > > to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, eNom has taken his property and > > interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his Web business > > over the last several months, and now many of the same sites operate > > with the suffix .net rather than .com, through a European registrar. > His > > servers, he said, have been in the Bahamas all along. > > > > Mr. Marshall said he did not understand "how Web sites owned by a > > British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be > affected > > by U.S. law." Worse, he said, "these days not even a judge is > required > > for the U.S. government to censor online materials." > > > > A Treasury spokesman, John Rankin, referred a caller to a press > > release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. > > It said Mr. Marshall's company had helped Americans evade > restrictions > > on travel to Cuba and was "a generator of resources that the Cuban > > regime uses to oppress its people." It added that American companies > > must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze > its > > assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to > do. > > > > Mr. Marshall said he was uninterested in American tourists. "They > > can't go anyway," he said. > > > > Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University in > Florida > > who has studied the blacklist - which the Treasury calls a list of > > "specially designated nationals" - said its operation was quite > > mysterious. "There really is no explanation or standard," he said, > "for > > why someone gets on the list." > > > > Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading > > authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name > > registrars are based in the United States gives the Treasury's Office > of > > Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, control "over a great deal of speech > - > > none of which may be actually hosted in the U.S., about the U.S. or > > conflicting with any U.S. rights." > > > > "OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech > disappear," > > Professor Crawford said. > > > > The law under which the Treasury Department is acting has an > > exemption, known as the Berman Amendment, which seeks to protect > > "information or informational materials." Mr. Marshall's Web sites, > > though ultimately commercial, would seem to qualify, and it is not > clear > > why they appear on the list. Unlike Americans, who face significant > > restrictions on travel to Cuba, Europeans are free to go there, and > many > > do. Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York, said > the > > Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr. Marshall's case. > > > > "The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S. > > citizens in Cuba," Mr. Sims said, "but it doesn't properly have any > > jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and > > which are lawful under foreign law." > > > > Mr. Rankin, the Treasury spokesman, said Mr. Marshall was free to > ask > > for a review of his case. "If they want to be taken off the list," Mr. > > Rankin said, "they should contact us to make their case." > > > > That is a problematic system, Professor Fitzgerald said. "The way > to > > get off the list," he said, "is to go back to the same bureaucrat who > > put you on." > > > > Last March, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights issued a > > disturbing report on the OFAC list. Its subtitle: "How a Treasury > > Department Terrorist Watch List Ensnares Everyday Consumers." > > > > The report, by Shirin Sinnar, said that there were 6,400 names on > the > > list and that, like no-fly lists at airports, it gave rise to endless > > and serious problems of mistaken identity. > > > > "Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, car > dealerships, > > health insurers, landlords and employers," the report said, "are now > > checking names against the list before they open an account, close a > > sale, rent an apartment or offer a job." > > > > But Mr. Marshall's case does not appear to be one of mistaken > > identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere > with > > his business. > > > > That, Professor Crawford said, is a scandal. "The way we > communicate > > these days is through domain names, and the Treasury Department > should > > not be interfering with domain names just as it does not interfere > with > > telecommunications lines." > > > > Curiously, the Treasury Department has not shut down all of Mr. > > Marshall's .com sites. You can still find, for now, > > www.cuba-guantanamo.com. > > > > -------- > > > > Online: Documents and an archive of Adam Liptak's articles: > > nytimes.com/adamliptak. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 6 11:30:51 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:30:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> Message-ID: <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> Fine, there might be horrid cases elsewhere, but there is no justification for yet anoter violation of rights by the US government regarding the Internet space. BTW, the servers were not in US territory, and the company is based in Spain. As I said, anyone who purchases a generic domain name is a risk-taker regarding the USA's "reasons of State". Verisign, through its subsidiary in Brazil, is doing an aggressive campaign here. It should put a footnote in its marketing pieces (in not so small letters) that there are risks of this kind involved in acquiring a generic domain name. Cuba is frequently visited by Brazilians, and several travel agencies here use a .com domain, quite certainly without knowing risks such as these. frt rgds --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > But then there are similar issues elsewhere. Try hosting neo nazi content on > a domain registered with a registrar / hosted with a provider in Germany, > just for example. > > Indymedia - cited previously - was a request from Italian law enforcement, > through their MLAT with US law enforcement. > > It would be utterly impractical to insist that the Internet operate in a > vacuum. > > This circleid thread has a much more informed discussion - the comment from > John Berryhill below .. > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/83420_controversial_domain_names/ > > > > US law prohibits US companies from engaging in direct or indirect commerce > with Cuba. These and other domain names were put on the OFAC list some time > ago, and in fact I notified Enom and other registrars by posting the update > to the ICANN Registrar Constituency list. > > IMHO, the US embargo is ineffective and silly, but that doesn't change the > very straightforward and widely known fact that a US company is going to be > subject to that embargo. > > > > srs > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:15 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Riaz K Tayob >> Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech >> Disappears >> >> Our discussion on net neutrality (and on freedom of expression, of >> course) ought to take issues such as this into account as well. Every >> gTLD domain name holder might be at risk of having their basic rights >> violated. I wonder what the US government could (or will) do with >> "suspicious", in their view, .org domain names... >> >> It is a scandal, says Susan Crawford, but violations of this kind will >> continue, in the name of "State security", wherever the affected >> servers >> are, wherever the domain name holders are... >> >> In the ongoing debates about Icann internationalization and its current >> vulnerabilities, some defend the idea that gTLDs should be left as a >> problem of the USA -- unfortunately, people outside the USA, being >> risk-takers, have purchased millions of these domains, so the issue >> goes >> far beyond the US borders. >> >> --c.a. >> >> Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears >>> By Adam Liptak >>> The New York Times >>> >>> Tuesday 04 March 2008 >>> >>> Steve Marshall is an English travel agent. He lives in Spain, and >> he >>> sells trips to Europeans who want to go to sunny places, including >> Cuba. >>> In October, about 80 of his Web sites stopped working, thanks to the >>> United States government. >>> >>> The sites, in English, French and Spanish, had been online since >>> 1998. Some, like www.cuba-hemingway.com, were literary. Others, like >>> www.cuba-havanacity.com, discussed Cuban history and culture. Still >>> others - www.ciaocuba.com and www.bonjourcuba.com - were purely >>> commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists. >>> >>> "I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at >> all," >>> Mr. Marshall said on the phone from the Canary Islands. "We thought >> it >>> was a technical problem." >>> >>> It turned out, though, that Mr. Marshall's Web sites had been put >> on >>> a Treasury Department blacklist and, as a consequence, his American >>> domain name registrar, eNom Inc., had disabled them. Mr. Marshall >> said >>> eNom told him it did so after a call from the Treasury Department; >> the >>> company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it learned that the sites >> were >>> on the blacklist through a blog. >>> >>> Either way, there is no dispute that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall's >>> sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain >> names >>> to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, eNom has taken his property and >>> interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his Web business >>> over the last several months, and now many of the same sites operate >>> with the suffix .net rather than .com, through a European registrar. >> His >>> servers, he said, have been in the Bahamas all along. >>> >>> Mr. Marshall said he did not understand "how Web sites owned by a >>> British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be >> affected >>> by U.S. law." Worse, he said, "these days not even a judge is >> required >>> for the U.S. government to censor online materials." >>> >>> A Treasury spokesman, John Rankin, referred a caller to a press >>> release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. >>> It said Mr. Marshall's company had helped Americans evade >> restrictions >>> on travel to Cuba and was "a generator of resources that the Cuban >>> regime uses to oppress its people." It added that American companies >>> must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze >> its >>> assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to >> do. >>> Mr. Marshall said he was uninterested in American tourists. "They >>> can't go anyway," he said. >>> >>> Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University in >> Florida >>> who has studied the blacklist - which the Treasury calls a list of >>> "specially designated nationals" - said its operation was quite >>> mysterious. "There really is no explanation or standard," he said, >> "for >>> why someone gets on the list." >>> >>> Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading >>> authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name >>> registrars are based in the United States gives the Treasury's Office >> of >>> Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, control "over a great deal of speech >> - >>> none of which may be actually hosted in the U.S., about the U.S. or >>> conflicting with any U.S. rights." >>> >>> "OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech >> disappear," >>> Professor Crawford said. >>> >>> The law under which the Treasury Department is acting has an >>> exemption, known as the Berman Amendment, which seeks to protect >>> "information or informational materials." Mr. Marshall's Web sites, >>> though ultimately commercial, would seem to qualify, and it is not >> clear >>> why they appear on the list. Unlike Americans, who face significant >>> restrictions on travel to Cuba, Europeans are free to go there, and >> many >>> do. Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York, said >> the >>> Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr. Marshall's case. >>> >>> "The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S. >>> citizens in Cuba," Mr. Sims said, "but it doesn't properly have any >>> jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and >>> which are lawful under foreign law." >>> >>> Mr. Rankin, the Treasury spokesman, said Mr. Marshall was free to >> ask >>> for a review of his case. "If they want to be taken off the list," Mr. >>> Rankin said, "they should contact us to make their case." >>> >>> That is a problematic system, Professor Fitzgerald said. "The way >> to >>> get off the list," he said, "is to go back to the same bureaucrat who >>> put you on." >>> >>> Last March, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights issued a >>> disturbing report on the OFAC list. Its subtitle: "How a Treasury >>> Department Terrorist Watch List Ensnares Everyday Consumers." >>> >>> The report, by Shirin Sinnar, said that there were 6,400 names on >> the >>> list and that, like no-fly lists at airports, it gave rise to endless >>> and serious problems of mistaken identity. >>> >>> "Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, car >> dealerships, >>> health insurers, landlords and employers," the report said, "are now >>> checking names against the list before they open an account, close a >>> sale, rent an apartment or offer a job." >>> >>> But Mr. Marshall's case does not appear to be one of mistaken >>> identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere >> with >>> his business. >>> >>> That, Professor Crawford said, is a scandal. "The way we >> communicate >>> these days is through domain names, and the Treasury Department >> should >>> not be interfering with domain names just as it does not interfere >> with >>> telecommunications lines." >>> >>> Curiously, the Treasury Department has not shut down all of Mr. >>> Marshall's .com sites. You can still find, for now, >>> www.cuba-guantanamo.com. >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> Online: Documents and an archive of Adam Liptak's articles: >>> nytimes.com/adamliptak. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 6 12:16:31 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:16:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Fine, there might be horrid cases elsewhere, but there is no > justification for yet anoter violation of rights by the US government > regarding the Internet space. BTW, the servers were not in US territory, Which servers, web or DNS? > and the company is based in Spain. > > As I said, anyone who purchases a generic domain name is a risk-taker > regarding the USA's "reasons of State". In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) would take the same action. Probably not. Then the question (that I think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com zone in such a case. I would hope not. -- 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 Mar 6 18:01:38 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:01:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Another way to put this is that as long as 85% of the DNS registry market is located in the US, the US government and US-based law will have near-global authority over key aspects of the Internet. True, this authority does not come directly from US Commerce Department oversight of the DNS root (IANA function), although that authority does provide a backstop for exercising US control if the lower-level mechanisms (2LDs, TLDs) fail > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > The same legal foundation that was used would also work against a > registry (as opposed to a registrar) located in the US. > > Thus even if the registrar is not in the US, if the name is in .com then > the US could use the same legal approach to apply leverage to the > registry, Verisign. And since many of the large registries are in the > US, that means that much of the DNS is vulnerable to this tactic. > > Actions like this do not promote the cohesion of the DNS but, instead, > create forces tending towards splitting and fragmentation. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 6 18:06:34 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:06:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> No offense, but I would advise you all not to rely on McTim for legal advice. > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) > would take the same action. Probably not. The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied with a legal order. .com is located in Virginia. > Then the question (that I > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com > zone in such a case. > > I would hope not. > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 7 01:47:11 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:17:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <000201c87edb$6744f850$b10110ac@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080307064736.EEF80E2D38@smtp3.electricembers.net> Michael Thanks for taking up this initiative. I agree to go with the statement as it stands, and I think it is very comprehensive. However I am offering some comments which you may use if and as found appropriate. I am replying publicly because I thought some the comments offered here may draw some responses here which themselves may be of some use to you. I think the statement is very good, and covers most areas of 'specific' exclusions in the IS (or info economy, IE) very well. I would though like to have some overall text prefacing what you have put down, which points to the 'systemic exclusions' arising from the way dominant version of IS or IE is conceived and practiced at present. Oftentimes, speaking only of 'marginal' exclusions, which can be corrected by patchwork here and there, serves to draw attention away from the issue of systemic exclusions which are more fundamental, and severely limit any real possibility of participation and inclusion. I therefore think that the statement should engage at both these levels. Classically, every (political) economy recognizes the distinction between those aspects that are of a 'public infrastructural' nature and those that need to be an exclusive preserve of the markets. Public infrastructural aspects requires large scale public investments in areas which support a huge amount of supra-structural economic activity, and these infrastructural areas may by themselves, for various structural reasons, be not attractive enough to private investment. Even if private investment does go into these critical infrastructures it may tend to skew the opportunity structures in a manner inimical to both the overall economy, and the concerns of equity within it. The emerging IS or IE has new key infrastructural elements at many levels whose 'public nature' needs to be recognized, and the financing and regulation of these elements has to proceed from this recognition. Beyond this distinction, every (political) economy or society also recognizes areas where direct public investments are needed not only as per economic logic stated above, but as a matter of social policy, to account for various basic needs and rights of the people, and to address various social inclusions. Policy makers need to see the Internet not only as a new market infrastructure, but also as a critical social infrastructure, bringing in the issues of rights and entitlements that are important aspects of today's welfare state. At present Information economy (or society) is often recognized as one exclusively market-mediated monolith where public sector is mostly only given a regulatory role. The traditional socio-economic distinctions of areas of an economy where markets dominate -personal automobiles for instance, and areas where public sector dominates - basic essential infrastructure, and specific domains like education and health, are obliterated. This is done in the fictional belief that somehow ICTs have completely perfected the markets, and that public sector interventions were in any case only needed for correcting market imperfections. This is a dangerous political economy assumption, which is not proven, and would certainly lead to massive exclusions and discriminations in the emerging information society (economy). When speaking about guiding principles of the future Information economy, which I understand the OECD ministerial seeks to do, it is important to recognize the elements of the IS - and of its paradigmatic infrastructure, the Internet - that are essentially of the nature of public infrastructure and public services. Discriminations and exclusions are systemically and structurally related to this issue of the adequate policy distinction between the private or market-mediated, on one hand, and the 'public', on the other, in the IS, while it is still important to deal specifically with each kind of exclusion that your statement elaborates on so well. In this context it may also be useful to refer the inputs of the European Council to the IGF which emphasizes the 'public service value' of the Internet, and links the issue of access to the Internet with democratic citizenship. To quote. "Consequently, it is proposed that everyone should be entitled to expect the delivery of a minimum level of Internet services (for example effective and affordable access, a suitable environment for businesses to operate, etc.) irrespective of both the architecture of the World Wide Web (infrastructure, accessibility, interconnectivity) and the arrangements concerning its construction and development, with regard to the rules or principles that apply - or ought to apply - to the Internet's use (such as freedom of speech and of association, right to private life and correspondence, consumer protection, security, crime-prevention)." (http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/CoE%20submission%20to%20the% 20IGF.pdf ) Parminder _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:40 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial Hello colleagues: I've agreed to pull together a section on "Discrimination in the Information Economy" for the CS statement to the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June. I've done up several very general statements as placeholders but I know that there are individuals on this list with specific expertise in these areas and I would very much appreciate if they could redo what I've done and as well add appropriate referencing to previous CS documents, standards, appropriate websites etc. If people could send their comments to me individually indicating which numbered section they are referring to, I'll compile them and recirculate them. I've agreed to do a final by Monday at the latest so speed is of the essence. (This is a bit of a last minute job so I'm not sure how much debate on wording will actually be possible so please if comments could be made as "generic" from a CS perspective as possible that would be great. Among the barriers to equitable participation are: 1.physical disability which interferes with the opportunity to make use of the input/output devices through which the digital platform is access. Such disabilities might include visual disabilities (the inability to read or interpret messages on a screen) as for example arising from blindness, colour blindness or other forms of visual impairment. There are a variety of well recognized standards for the design of web interfaces which enable utilization of these sites by those with visual disabilities but these standards are for the most part voluntary and frequently are ignored or overlooked. The enforcement of these standards particularly in government sites or site which are supportive of public participation, provide public services, or are overall in the realm of "public activities" should become mandatory and means for their enforcement should be developed. 2.levels of literacy may be required by certain digitally enabled activities which act as discriminants for those with lower levels of education, cognitive abilities or limited facility with the language being used on the site. Similarly as with visual disabilities standards exist for determining the level of literacy required for utilization of specific sites and these should be formally adopted and means developed for their enforcement particularly in those sites necessary for social, political and economic functioning in the Information Society 3.differential access to the use of the Internet because of barriers of cost of access (Internet access costs or costs of the input/output devices themselves (personal computers for example). Many of those currently not using the Internet (as understood by means of the concept of the "Digital Divide") are not doing so because of the cost of this service. Ensuring that publicly accessible services at no or nominal cost is a minimum basis for ensuring equitable participation in the Information Society. 4.related to the financial barrier of access may be the barriers of physical disability in limiting access to places where no or minimal cost Internet access may be available. Many of those with physical disabilities also have very low incomes so the opportunity to use the Internet (or other ICTs) may only come through public Internet access points (PIAPs). If these PIAPs are themselves not accessible because of physical barriers (as for example not being wheel chair accessible), then the opportunity to participate is doubly restricted. 5.further, many of those also who do not make use of the Internet may not be doing so because of a lack of knowledge or personal confidence with respect to the means for making such use. This would be particularly the case for the elderly and those with lower levels of education. The barrier of confidence or skill with respect to Internet use may be overcome through the availability of training or support services in the context of the PIAPs and thus publicly supported means for providing this training (it is frequently done through support of volunteers or student interns) is a further means for ensuring that discriminatory barriers do not exist for Internet participation. 6. Equitable gender access to ICT has been linked to an increase in overall social equality for women; however, within numerous global contexts-including those of Developed Countries-gender disparities in access to ICT persist, and women predominate the lower-wage sectors of the information economy. Women also are under-represented in ICT decision-making capacities. Gender is one of many factors that determine the impact of ICT on women's lives. Ethnicity, religion, age, physical ability, and socio-economic status also figure into the degrees of inclusion and exclusion that differentiate regions and communities. Key to overcoming the barriers, shortcomings and misconceptions that exacerbate gender inequalities in ICT are the comprehensive education of all persons regardless of gender, the promotion of equal access for women to scientific and technological arenas, the provision of opportunities for lifelong learning in ICT, and the augmentation of women's roles in ICT decision-making. Governments should enable equal access and opportunity for all via policies and programs as well as collaborate more broadly with the private sector and civil society to change social attitudes, cultural ideologies, and stereotypes that limit women's participation in the digital economy. 7. in many circumstances there are additional difficulties (and costs) in obtaining access to the means for participation in the digital economy by those living in remote, rural, or low-income areas. The cost of the provision of enhanced (broadband for example) infrastructures in such areas may lead to gaps in access in these areas if the service provision is only left to market considerations. In order to ensure that there is no discrimination or additional barriers to participation on the part of rural and remote residents it may be necessary for public authorities to intervene to find means to balance costs as between locales. 8. Individuals' relationship with access providers or their business partners may also be a source for discrimination against particular users. Vertical integration of access provision with other products, content, and services may lead access providers to engage in tying behaviors, such as blocking or degrading competitors' services. Competition and communications authorities should act to prevent such behavior. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 7 03:39:40 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:39:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milty, On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > No offense, but I would advise you all not to rely on McTim for legal > advice. > no offense taken, certainly, nor was i offering legal advice. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) > > would take the same action. Probably not. > > > The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied with a > legal order. > > .com is located in Virginia. > > > Then the question (that I > > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com > > zone in such a case. > > > > I would hope not. > > > > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. > Was the Enom/Cuba case taken to court? I thought it was a slam-dunk (the registrant not even informed). Of course, it would be up to the court system if VRSN went there. In my hypothetical situation posited, I would hope they would. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 03:47:28 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:47:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Milton, Following your remarks to McTim below, and supposing this indeed is done through the courts, the interesting set of questions here is : 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from the US ? 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do it (block the domain name) ? 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants become indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of appropriate strings, but also in terms of the very activity they run, even on servers not located on US territory and serving customers outside of the US ? This is a real and useful discussion. Nothing to do with the "oversight of the root" via IANA. It is exposing the core challenge of competing or overlapping jurisdictions and probably the need for some "globally-applicable public policy principles". I believe nobody has the full complete answer. In my *personal* view, this is an illustration of the mutation of sovereignty, disconnecting it from the sole physical territory and allowing it to expand in a fractal manner on other territories - or conversely, retract - depending on the influence of the corresponding national actors in the digital sphere. And those national actors are not only the governments : the existence of a dominant player in a specific domain (Verisign, but also a Google, YouTube, MySpace or Facebook) does bring the corresponding government a leverage. But it probably also gives it a special responsibility it did not have before. This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our connected world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the challenge is to manage interdependence and interactions. To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the issue of IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major registries for IDN TLDs (particularly gTLDs if any) give the corresponding national courts a specific authority/legal power on all registrants in those TLDs, even if they are not located in that country and have no business with its citizens ? These are deep policy issues and I'd be interested in comments on those challenges. Because they are challenges for governments too. Best Bertrand On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) > > would take the same action. Probably not. > > The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied with a > legal order. > > .com is located in Virginia. > > > Then the question (that I > > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com > > zone in such a case. > > > > I would hope not. > > > > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 03:47:28 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:47:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Milton, Following your remarks to McTim below, and supposing this indeed is done through the courts, the interesting set of questions here is : 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from the US ? 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do it (block the domain name) ? 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants become indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of appropriate strings, but also in terms of the very activity they run, even on servers not located on US territory and serving customers outside of the US ? This is a real and useful discussion. Nothing to do with the "oversight of the root" via IANA. It is exposing the core challenge of competing or overlapping jurisdictions and probably the need for some "globally-applicable public policy principles". I believe nobody has the full complete answer. In my *personal* view, this is an illustration of the mutation of sovereignty, disconnecting it from the sole physical territory and allowing it to expand in a fractal manner on other territories - or conversely, retract - depending on the influence of the corresponding national actors in the digital sphere. And those national actors are not only the governments : the existence of a dominant player in a specific domain (Verisign, but also a Google, YouTube, MySpace or Facebook) does bring the corresponding government a leverage. But it probably also gives it a special responsibility it did not have before. This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our connected world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the challenge is to manage interdependence and interactions. To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the issue of IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major registries for IDN TLDs (particularly gTLDs if any) give the corresponding national courts a specific authority/legal power on all registrants in those TLDs, even if they are not located in that country and have no business with its citizens ? These are deep policy issues and I'd be interested in comments on those challenges. Because they are challenges for governments too. Best Bertrand On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) > > would take the same action. Probably not. > > The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied with a > legal order. > > .com is located in Virginia. > > > Then the question (that I > > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com > > zone in such a case. > > > > I would hope not. > > > > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 04:58:24 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:58:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] RIPE NCC RIS on the YouTube / Pakistan rerouting Message-ID: <954259bd0803070158x34a4430csf243055d0b75284a@mail.gmail.com> An interesting case report from RIPE NCC RIS on the recent YouTube / Pakistan Telecom problem : http://www.ripe.net/news/study-youtube-hijacking.html Very illustrative animation. B. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 7 05:36:18 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:36:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bertrand, As some people already commented on this list, there is nothing really new in this story: it is yet another "notice and take down" kind of procedure, where: - there has been no notice (neither of the website owner, nor - according to the report I've read - of the website host provider) - since neither the website owner, nor - again, according to the report I've read - the host provider is subject to US law, the US registrar was used to execute the "notice and take down" procedure ordered by the US administrative authority, here the Treasury Department. Additionally, there has been no court decision, but it's exactly the problem with the "notice and take down" procedure! It's a procedure that legitimates private or administrative justice and private law enforcement! There is an abundant literature on this. The "notice and take down" procedure is fully legal (and mandatory, BTW) for host providers in the European Union, through the liability of intermediaries provisions (EU Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, article 14). The Directive is available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:EN:NOT. To my knowledge, it is also legal in the US law, but normally restricted to IPR infringement (DMCA provision). There is also the "good samaritan provision" of the CDA, limitting the liability of a "provider or user of interactive computer service" for restricting access to or availability of material considered as "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or objectionable". But I understand this only applies to "decency" issues with content, not to any law infringement. Now regarding the provider: In the EU, the provider acting as "mere conduit" (and this could apply to the registrar I think) is exempted from liability (article 12 of the directive). however, article 12(3) provides that: "3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement." BTW, as you know Bertrand this is the case with the French implementation of the Directive (LCEN, article 6-I(8)). In the US, I don't know the law in details, but it seems that the CDA provisions allows quite a wide interpretation: a "provider or user" could be a registrar. In the case we're discussing, it seems that there're reasonable chances that the owner of the website wins if he goes to court in the US (but this would take a lot of time, money, and energy). And the lesson to learn here is that, unless there is any good reason to escape one's national law, one should prefer not only national host providers, but also national registrars, and national registries, if possible. In principle, national legislation is better known by users/citizens, and court litigation is of course easier in one's own country. There are some protections for consumers rights Regarding your set of questions, I don't think they're relevant to this case: > > 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from > the US ? NB. the registrar is US, not foreign here. Probably not. If he does, it would be very easy to go to the national court and win (provided that the content doesn't also infringe the national law). > 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do > it (block the domain name) ? NB: there is no court order here. The answer should be in the contract between the registry and the registrars. > 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants > become indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of > appropriate strings, but also in terms of the very activity they > run, even on servers not located on US territory and serving > customers outside of the US ? Yes, should Verisign has the right to do it according to its contract with the registrar. But still, this could perfectly lead to a court case filed in the foreign country by the website owner against its registrar. In any case, what would be very interesting is to analyze, with respect to this case, the contracts between: 1. the registrar and the registrant 2. the registry and the registrar 3. ICANN and the registry (in case of e.g. foreign registry). I know this sounds like Goodwin point reached, but this possibility cannot be avoided. The whole point here is indeed the conflict of jurisdictions, in a case probably not dealt with by international law, and the attempt to solve it through "private exequatur", thus circumventing all legal procedure, recognized by international law and agreements. In my opinion, what you call "fractal sovereigny" is a breach of the rule of law. And is likely to lead to the legitimation of the jungle law. Best, Meryem Le 7 mars 08 à 09:47, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > Milton, > > Following your remarks to McTim below, and supposing this indeed is > done through the courts, the interesting set of questions here is : > > 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from > the US ? > 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do > it (block the domain name) ? > 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants > become indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of > appropriate strings, but also in terms of the very activity they > run, even on servers not located on US territory and serving > customers outside of the US ? > > This is a real and useful discussion. Nothing to do with the > "oversight of the root" via IANA. It is exposing the core challenge > of competing or overlapping jurisdictions and probably the need for > some "globally-applicable public policy principles". I believe > nobody has the full complete answer. In my personal view, this is > an illustration of the mutation of sovereignty, disconnecting it > from the sole physical territory and allowing it to expand in a > fractal manner on other territories - or conversely, retract - > depending on the influence of the corresponding national actors in > the digital sphere. And those national actors are not only the > governments : the existence of a dominant player in a specific > domain (Verisign, but also a Google, YouTube, MySpace or Facebook) > does bring the corresponding government a leverage. But it probably > also gives it a special responsibility it did not have before. > > This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the > traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our > connected world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the > challenge is to manage interdependence and interactions. > > To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the > issue of IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major > registries for IDN TLDs (particularly gTLDs if any) give the > corresponding national courts a specific authority/legal power on > all registrants in those TLDs, even if they are not located in that > country and have no business with its citizens ? > > These are deep policy issues and I'd be interested in comments on > those challenges. Because they are challenges for governments too. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US > registrant) > > would take the same action. Probably not. > > The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied > with a > legal order. > > .com is located in Virginia. > > > Then the question (that I > > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from > the .com > > zone in such a case. > > > > I would hope not. > > > > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 06:08:02 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:08:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0803070308y611ccdf6k74aaff7b5e06346d@mail.gmail.com> Meryem, I fully agree this case is a "notice and take down" procedure. My questions were related to the hypothesis of such an order being given by a court in the US (as per Milton's comment) towards a registrar that would be elsewhere. You raise a valid question when you say : "it seems that the CDA provisions allows quite a wide interpretation: a "provider or user" could be a registrar.". Interesting point to explore further. What you actually describe is a chain of successive enforcement modes : notice and take down on specific contents towards the site operator, notice and take down for a whole site through the ISP, suspension of the domain via the registrar, and then the registry. This escalation, may be compared to the nuclear deterrence "graduated response" model (and you know this expression has flourished in France in relation to the measures proposed in the case of music downloads). Interestingly enough, such mechanism cannot escalate up to the root itself. In cases of competing or overlapping jurisdictions, the key question you want to see addressed, if I understand well, is the transparency and accountability (including capacity for redress and appeal) that should exist at these different levels. It is indeed the right question. Relying merely on the national law or on contracts is not enough to provide a coherent framework. This is the challenge we are facing. In that context, the notion of "fractal sovereignty" I was alluding to would not be a breach of the rule of law. Quite on the contrary, an attempt to maintain (or establish) it in cases where the web is raising new problems that are hard to solve with pure territorial sovereignty and the non-involvement of key technical or commercial actors. I do not have the full solution. But we probably need to forge new concepts if we want to define a global framework that works and is widely acceptable. Thanks for your comments anyway. Best Bertrand On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Bertrand, > > As some people already commented on this list, there is nothing > really new in this story: it is yet another "notice and take down" > kind of procedure, where: > - there has been no notice (neither of the website owner, nor - > according to the report I've read - of the website host provider) > - since neither the website owner, nor - again, according to the > report I've read - the host provider is subject to US law, the US > registrar was used to execute the "notice and take down" procedure > ordered by the US administrative authority, here the Treasury > Department. > > Additionally, there has been no court decision, but it's exactly the > problem with the "notice and take down" procedure! It's a procedure > that legitimates private or administrative justice and private law > enforcement! There is an abundant literature on this. > > The "notice and take down" procedure is fully legal (and mandatory, > BTW) for host providers in the European Union, through the liability > of intermediaries provisions (EU Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic > commerce, article 14). The Directive is available at: http://eur- > lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:EN:NOT. > > To my knowledge, it is also legal in the US law, but normally > restricted to IPR infringement (DMCA provision). There is also the > "good samaritan provision" of the CDA, limitting the liability of a > "provider or user of interactive computer service" for restricting > access to or availability of material considered as "obscene, lewd, > lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or objectionable". > But I understand this only applies to "decency" issues with content, > not to any law infringement. > > Now regarding the provider: > In the EU, the provider acting as "mere conduit" (and this could > apply to the registrar I think) is exempted from liability (article > 12 of the directive). however, article 12(3) provides that: "3. This > Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or > administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal > systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an > infringement." BTW, as you know Bertrand this is the case with the > French implementation of the Directive (LCEN, article 6-I(8)). > In the US, I don't know the law in details, but it seems that the CDA > provisions allows quite a wide interpretation: a "provider or user" > could be a registrar. > > In the case we're discussing, it seems that there're reasonable > chances that the owner of the website wins if he goes to court in the > US (but this would take a lot of time, money, and energy). > And the lesson to learn here is that, unless there is any good reason > to escape one's national law, one should prefer not only national > host providers, but also national registrars, and national > registries, if possible. In principle, national legislation is better > known by users/citizens, and court litigation is of course easier in > one's own country. There are some protections for consumers rights > > Regarding your set of questions, I don't think they're relevant to > this case: > > > > > 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from > > the US ? > > NB. the registrar is US, not foreign here. Probably not. If he does, > it would be very easy to go to the national court and win (provided > that the content doesn't also infringe the national law). > > > 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do > > it (block the domain name) ? > > NB: there is no court order here. The answer should be in the > contract between the registry and the registrars. > > > 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants > > become indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of > > appropriate strings, but also in terms of the very activity they > > run, even on servers not located on US territory and serving > > customers outside of the US ? > > Yes, should Verisign has the right to do it according to its contract > with the registrar. But still, this could perfectly lead to a court > case filed in the foreign country by the website owner against its > registrar. > > In any case, what would be very interesting is to analyze, with > respect to this case, the contracts between: > 1. the registrar and the registrant > 2. the registry and the registrar > 3. ICANN and the registry (in case of e.g. foreign registry). I know > this sounds like Goodwin point reached, but this possibility cannot > be avoided. > > The whole point here is indeed the conflict of jurisdictions, in a > case probably not dealt with by international law, and the attempt to > solve it through "private exequatur", thus circumventing all legal > procedure, recognized by international law and agreements. In my > opinion, what you call "fractal sovereigny" is a breach of the rule > of law. And is likely to lead to the legitimation of the jungle law. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 7 mars 08 à 09:47, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > > > Milton, > > > > Following your remarks to McTim below, and supposing this indeed is > > done through the courts, the interesting set of questions here is : > > > > 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from > > the US ? > > 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do > > it (block the domain name) ? > > 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants > > become indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of > > appropriate strings, but also in terms of the very activity they > > run, even on servers not located on US territory and serving > > customers outside of the US ? > > > > This is a real and useful discussion. Nothing to do with the > > "oversight of the root" via IANA. It is exposing the core challenge > > of competing or overlapping jurisdictions and probably the need for > > some "globally-applicable public policy principles". I believe > > nobody has the full complete answer. In my personal view, this is > > an illustration of the mutation of sovereignty, disconnecting it > > from the sole physical territory and allowing it to expand in a > > fractal manner on other territories - or conversely, retract - > > depending on the influence of the corresponding national actors in > > the digital sphere. And those national actors are not only the > > governments : the existence of a dominant player in a specific > > domain (Verisign, but also a Google, YouTube, MySpace or Facebook) > > does bring the corresponding government a leverage. But it probably > > also gives it a special responsibility it did not have before. > > > > This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the > > traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our > > connected world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the > > challenge is to manage interdependence and interactions. > > > > To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the > > issue of IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major > > registries for IDN TLDs (particularly gTLDs if any) give the > > corresponding national courts a specific authority/legal power on > > all registrants in those TLDs, even if they are not located in that > > country and have no business with its citizens ? > > > > These are deep policy issues and I'd be interested in comments on > > those challenges. Because they are challenges for governments too. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Milton L Mueller > > wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > > > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US > > registrant) > > > would take the same action. Probably not. > > > > The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied > > with a > > legal order. > > > > .com is located in Virginia. > > > > > Then the question (that I > > > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from > > the .com > > > zone in such a case. > > > > > > I would hope not. > > > > > > > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > 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 > -- ____________________ 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 7 07:32:30 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:32:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <954259bd0803070308y611ccdf6k74aaff7b5e06346d@mail.gmail.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0803070308y611ccdf6k74aaff7b5e06346d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2154CF22-E5F8-438D-92B3-BC2F8B3CA9C5@ras.eu.org> Le 7 mars 08 à 12:08, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > I fully agree this case is a "notice and take down" procedure. My > questions were related to the hypothesis of such an order being > given by a court in the US (as per Milton's comment) towards a > registrar that would be elsewhere. There are precedent for this: the French/US Yahoo case. The precedent is in the court order issued in one country (France), to be executed in another country (USA). It resulted in an 6 years litigation in French and US courts. In fine, there is still no clear jurisprudence on enforcement in the US of foreign court orders. I don't know of any important precedent for the converse situation (US court order to be enforced in a foreign country). > [...] > What you actually describe is a chain of successive enforcement > modes : notice and take down on specific contents towards the site > operator, notice and take down for a whole site through the ISP, > suspension of the domain via the registrar, and then the registry. > This escalation, may be compared to the nuclear deterrence > "graduated response" model (and you know this expression has > flourished in France in relation to the measures proposed in the > case of music downloads). The "graduated response" foreseen in France is a completely different concept. > Interestingly enough, such mechanism cannot escalate up to the root > itself. I fail to see why? The possibility I mentioned is that ICANN (a US legal entity) be ordered by a US court to use contractual provisions (if they allow) with a foreign registry to suspend a domain name? > In cases of competing or overlapping jurisdictions, the key > question you want to see addressed, if I understand well, is the > transparency and accountability (including capacity for redress and > appeal) that should exist at these different levels. It is indeed > the right question. What I would really want to be addressed, and what is the right (and main) question in my opinion, is the resolution of the conflicts of jurisdiction in Internet content-related cases. There indeed exist some international law provisions dealing with the conflict of jurisdiction issues, but to my knowledge it is mainly limited to civil and commercial matters. Better than transparency and accountability and capacity for redress and appeal (which are a posteriori procedures, after one has already faced a court decision against him/her) would be true legal security for website owners, i.e. for responsibles of published content. > In that context, the notion of "fractal sovereignty" I was alluding > to would not be a breach of the rule of law. Quite on the contrary, > an attempt to maintain (or establish) it in cases where the web is > raising new problems that are hard to solve with pure territorial > sovereignty and the non-involvement of key technical or commercial > actors. Perhaps we're actually willing to reach the same goal, but I don't see here any need for new concepts like "fractal sovereignty", which fuziness could only be used (whether we like it or not) to circumvent well established and secure principles and rights. I would feel far more comfortable with a discussion on new international law agreements based on the principle of the country of origin of the content owner -- But there's for sure, a very long way to this, and the result is by no mean guaranteed. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 09:12:58 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:12:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <2154CF22-E5F8-438D-92B3-BC2F8B3CA9C5@ras.eu.org> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0803070308y611ccdf6k74aaff7b5e06346d@mail.gmail.com> <2154CF22-E5F8-438D-92B3-BC2F8B3CA9C5@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0803070612g6bdd481do692ed4e5d86f8ae6@mail.gmail.com> Dear Meryem, Interesting to turn this list into a franco-french exchange for once ...:-) Just a few remarks and I stop. 1) you wrote : > Interestingly enough, such mechanism cannot escalate up to the root > itself. I fail to see why? The possibility I mentioned is that ICANN (a US legal entity) be ordered by a US court to use contractual provisions (if they allow) with a foreign registry to suspend a domain name? This was precisely my point : what you describe is not an intervention on the root itself (ie : an IANA oversight function), but a potential action through ICANN and its contractual agreements, which is a different matter. What I meant is that this escalation brings larger and larger impact with each level : site owners can be asked to suppress very small items (maybe down to a sentence), registrars and registries can only act at the level of the domain name (ie the whole site). But nothing can be actually done at the top root level - unless I completely misunderstand the whole system, which is possible - except disabling the whole TLD, a disproportionate "nuclear" action if any. Although, upon further thinking, in the perspective of future new TLDs of smaller size and more specific purpose than .com, that would consistently refuse to impose upon their registrants the provisions of the contractual agreement, such a drastic measure could potentially be envisaged as part of a structured and clear enforcement mechanism. I do not say it should. 2) You are right : appeal and redress are only ex-post actions. Ex ante principles and rules of enforcement must be clear to "resolve conflicts of jurisdiction in Internet content-related cases". This is why I found useful to discuss concrete cases like this one. 3) A last word on "fractal sovereignty". The way it was worded makes it look like a solution. I was rather refering to a factual description of a situation. I should have written "we are witnessing a fractalization of sovereignty". Thanks for forcing me to be more precise. Best Bertrand On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Le 7 mars 08 à 12:08, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > > I fully agree this case is a "notice and take down" procedure. My > > questions were related to the hypothesis of such an order being > > given by a court in the US (as per Milton's comment) towards a > > registrar that would be elsewhere. > There are precedent for this: the French/US Yahoo case. The precedent is > in the court order issued in one country (France), to be executed > in another country (USA). It resulted in an 6 years litigation in > French and US courts. In fine, there is still no clear jurisprudence > on enforcement in the US of foreign court orders. I don't know of any > important precedent for the converse situation (US court order to be > enforced in a foreign country). > > [...] > > What you actually describe is a chain of successive enforcement > > modes : notice and take down on specific contents towards the site > > operator, notice and take down for a whole site through the ISP, > > suspension of the domain via the registrar, and then the registry. > > This escalation, may be compared to the nuclear deterrence > > "graduated response" model (and you know this expression has > > flourished in France in relation to the measures proposed in the > > case of music downloads). > The "graduated response" foreseen in France is a completely different > concept. > > Interestingly enough, such mechanism cannot escalate up to the root > > itself. > I fail to see why? The possibility I mentioned is that ICANN (a US legal > entity) be ordered by a US court to use contractual provisions > (if they allow) with a foreign registry to suspend a domain name? > > In cases of competing or overlapping jurisdictions, the key > > question you want to see addressed, if I understand well, is the > > transparency and accountability (including capacity for redress and > > appeal) that should exist at these different levels. It is indeed > > the right question. > What I would really want to be addressed, and what is the right (and main) > question in my opinion, is the resolution of the conflicts of > jurisdiction in Internet content-related cases. There indeed exist > some international law provisions dealing with the conflict of > jurisdiction issues, but to my knowledge it is mainly limited to > civil and commercial matters. Better than transparency and > accountability and capacity for redress and appeal (which are a > posteriori procedures, after one has already faced a court decision > against him/her) would be true legal security for website owners, > i.e. for responsibles of published content. > > In that context, the notion of "fractal sovereignty" I was alluding > > to would not be a breach of the rule of law. Quite on the contrary, > > an attempt to maintain (or establish) it in cases where the web is > > raising new problems that are hard to solve with pure territorial > > sovereignty and the non-involvement of key technical or commercial > > actors. > Perhaps we're actually willing to reach the same goal, but I don't see > here any need for new concepts like "fractal sovereignty", which > fuziness could only be used (whether we like it or not) to circumvent > well established and secure principles and rights. I would feel far > more comfortable with a discussion on new international law > agreements based on the principle of the country of origin of the > content owner -- But there's for sure, a very long way to this, and > the result is by no mean guaranteed. > Best, > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Mar 7 09:53:53 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:53:53 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Dear Bertrand -- After consulting my Webster's dictionary, I fear "fractalization" isn't a word in English (tho maybe you've just invented it). One could speak of "fracturing of soveregnty" or "fractioning" or "disaggregation" or "disintegration" of sovereignty. But I think Meryem is right. Why not just stick to the idea that jurisdiction should be execised by the country of origin of the content (altho in cyberspace, establishing country of origin isn't necessarily easy, especially when there are deliberate attempts to obfuscate it) ? Amitiés, Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 7 10:27:39 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:27:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <954259bd0803070612g6bdd481do692ed4e5d86f8ae6@mail.gmail.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0803070308y611ccdf6k74aaff7b5e06346d@mail.gmail.com> <2154CF22-E5F8-438D-92B3-BC2F8B3CA9C5@ras.eu.org> <954259bd0803070612g6bdd481do692ed4e5d86f8ae6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <115174FE-7E14-484D-B4E8-5FF156E165E3@ras.eu.org> Le 7 mars 08 à 15:12, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > Dear Meryem, > > Interesting to turn this list into a franco-french exchange for > once ...:-) Just a few remarks and I stop. Why stopping, this is an interesting discussion and exchange of arguments. The fact that we both are French (and now let's add Rony, who speaks perfect French although he's not French:)) doesn't mean that we're discussing a local issue. > This was precisely my point : what you describe is not an > intervention on the root itself (ie : an IANA oversight function), > but a potential action through ICANN and its contractual > agreements, which is a different matter. Agree in this case, but an intervention on the root itself could be considered if the goal was to suspend/remove a whole TLD. > What I meant is that this escalation brings larger and larger > impact with each level : site owners can be asked to suppress very > small items (maybe down to a sentence), registrars and registries > can only act at the level of the domain name (ie the whole site). > But nothing can be actually done at the top root level - unless I > completely misunderstand the whole system, which is possible - > except disabling the whole TLD, a disproportionate "nuclear" action > if any. Exactly, and hasn't this happened with ccTLD, ex post (with an existing ccTLD) or ex ante (by forbidding the creation of a new TLD)? Regarding the analysis in terms of larger and larger impact: this is only the consequence, depending on which level is used to execute the decision. But this is not necessarily the initial objective. So, rather than speaking of larger and larger impact, I would rather compare this phenomenon to the "cascade responsibility" that applies with the other media (written press, audio-visual). Note that I'm not sure this "cascade responsibility" system applies in other legal press regime than in the French law (probably, at least more or less, since it's directly related to the editorial responsibility -- and liability). Rony, could you please comment on that? You certainly are well aware of this. If this kind of analogy is not wrong, then this simply demonstrates that we're back (or still) facing issues which were already discussed more than 10 years ago: there are continuous attempts to impose an editorial liability on technical intermediaries (at different levels ISP, registrar, registry, etc. one should also consider search engines), simply because it's easier to target them and to have them "do the job" (censorship of contents and/or activities). Either they accept to be the censorship instrument or they would face themselves the penalty. I'm not sure this has anything to do with global internet governance (but what is global internet governance? ah ah). It's a content/ activity regulation problem, which becomes, with the cross-border issue, a conflict of jurisdictions problem. Rien de nouveau sous le soleil (which should translate as: nothing new under the sun)! Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Fri Mar 7 10:36:22 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:36:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <954259bd0803070308y611ccdf6k74aaff7b5e06346d@mail.gmail.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0803070308y611ccdf6k74aaff7b5e06346d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02442548-3112-4B8D-88EE-7A57A9FC139F@internet.law.pro> On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:08 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > My questions were related to the hypothesis of such an order being > given by a court in the US (as per Milton's comment) towards a > registrar that would be elsewhere. This happens with some frequency. (a) Foreign registrar is sued in the U.S. (b) Foreign registrar fails to appear in the U.S. court. (c) The plaintiff gets a judgment against the foreign registrar commanding it to do something (or for money damages). At this point, the Plaintiff can seize any assets of the foreign registrar that are in the U.S. as a means of securing the judgment. If there are no assets in the U.S., the Plaintiff must take the judgment to the foreign registrar's home jurisdiction and ask the courts in the foreign country to honor the U.S. judgment. Whether or not a country will honor a U.S. judgment depends on many factors, such as whether the U.S. would in turn honor that country's judgments and the perceived fairness of the U.S. proceeding, including whether the foreign court believes the U.S. had jurisdiction over the foreign registrar. Now substitute "foreign company" for "foreign registrar," and you'll see an even bigger body of similar case law. We all learn this in law school, as it comes up with from time to time. -- 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 bfausett at internet.law.pro Fri Mar 7 10:41:34 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:41:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DD11F9C-2487-4242-A7B3-1E27B3C33EA9@internet.law.pro> On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:36 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Additionally, there has been no court decision, but it's exactly the > problem with the "notice and take down" procedure! It's a procedure > that legitimates private or administrative justice and private law > enforcement! I don't think I understand the point about this being private law enforcement. In the matter that started this thread, eNom was told by the U.S. government to take certain actions, since the eNom customers were on a watch list of persons with whom U.S. businesses are forbidden from doing business. There were *criminal* sanctions, including imprisonment up to 30 years, for knowingly violating the U.S. prohibition. Once eNom was put on notice of the violation, failing to act would have been a knowing violation. http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/faq/answer.shtml#11 I think of private enforcement as actions between private parties, like a civil lawsuit. This was most clearly governmental compulsion, or "public enforcement." -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Fri Mar 7 10:45:49 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:45:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 6, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Another way to put this is that as long as 85% of the DNS registry > market is located in the US, the US government and US-based law will > have near-global authority over key aspects of the Internet. If 85% of the market is in U.S.-based business, perhaps the best lesson here is that registrants should move their domain names out of the U.S. unless they want to be subject to U.S. laws. I don't think most registrants understand the consequences of selecting a services provider -- be it a registrar or a hosting company -- based outside their own country. Isn't this an opportunity to teach? Maybe we should do something on this inside IGF. I would think the governments of the world would welcome the opportunity to teach users about the benefits of locally owned businesses. -- 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Mar 7 11:03:56 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:03:56 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Dear Bertrand -- How about "fragmentation" ? Amitiés, Rony ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 7 11:14:49 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:14:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E82@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Bertrand: I see a real US lawyer (Bret Fausett) has answered your question so I have no need to play one on the Net. ________________________________ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 3:47 AM Following your remarks to McTim below, and supposing this indeed is done through the courts, the interesting set of questions here is : 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from the US ? 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do it (block the domain name) ? 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants become indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of appropriate strings, but also in terms of the very activity they run, even on servers not located on US territory and serving customers outside of the US ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 7 11:19:55 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:19:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E83@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] In my personal view, this is an illustration of the mutation of sovereignty, disconnecting it from the sole physical territory and allowing it to expand in a fractal manner on other territories - or conversely, retract - depending on the influence of the corresponding national actors in the digital sphere. And those national actors are not only the governments : the existence of a dominant player in a specific domain (Verisign, but also a Google, YouTube, MySpace or Facebook) does bring the corresponding government a leverage. But it probably also gives it a special responsibility it did not have before. This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our connected world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the challenge is to manage interdependence and interactions. Good observations, B. Yes, this is the "networked governance" concept that some of us are beginning to look at more systematically from a political science concept. To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the issue of IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major registries for IDN TLDs (particularly gTLDs if any) give the corresponding national courts a specific authority/legal power on all registrants in those TLDs, even if they are not located in that country and have no business with its citizens ? Of course it will. I don't see how a string's status as an IDN alters the nature of the situation, so maybe I am not understanding what you are asking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 7 11:20:38 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:20:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <2DD11F9C-2487-4242-A7B3-1E27B3C33EA9@internet.law.pro> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> <2DD11F9C-2487-4242-A7B3-1E27B3C33EA9@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <34CB9674-9780-4717-8D43-41ED3DDC3645@ras.eu.org> Le 7 mars 08 à 16:41, Bret Fausett a écrit : > On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:36 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Additionally, there has been no court decision, but it's exactly >> the problem with the "notice and take down" procedure! It's a >> procedure that legitimates private or administrative justice and >> private law enforcement! > > I don't think I understand the point about this being private law > enforcement. I do agree this is not a matter of civil law. I meant by private law enforcement "enforcement by - or through - a private partie", not a LEA. I should probably have said "privatized law enforcement". In the same way, when I say private or admnistrative justice, I mean a (normally) legal decision to be made by court is made either by a private party (generally the ISP in the notice and take down procedure) or by an administration (here the US Treasury Dpt.) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 7 11:23:43 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:23:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E85@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Bret, I think a better way to ask that question is, how can we, via Internet governance and global public policy making, better realize the potential of the Internet to offer global services without ensnaring end users/customers in the idiosyncracies of territorial jurisdictions? How can we create a global -- and globally accountable -- "jurisdiction" within which these services can be offered? > -----Original Message----- > From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] > > If 85% of the market is in U.S.-based business, perhaps the best > lesson here is that registrants should move their domain names out of > the U.S. unless they want to be subject to U.S. laws. I don't think > most registrants understand the consequences of selecting a services > provider -- be it a registrar or a hosting company -- based outside > their own country. > > Isn't this an opportunity to teach? Maybe we should do something on > this inside IGF. I would think the governments of the world would > welcome the opportunity to teach users about the benefits of locally > owned businesses. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 7 11:27:15 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:27:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E86@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Fractal is a mathematical (geometry) concept that does have some applicability here. http://math.rice.edu/~lanius/frac/ Also they are fun.... ________________________________ From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:54 AM To: bdelachapelle at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Dear Bertrand -- After consulting my Webster's dictionary, I fear "fractalization" isn't a word in English (tho maybe you've just invented it). One could speak of "fracturing of soveregnty" or "fractioning" or "disaggregation" or "disintegration" of sovereignty. But I think Meryem is right. Why not just stick to the idea that jurisdiction should be execised by the country of origin of the content (altho in cyberspace, establishing country of origin isn't necessarily easy, especially when there are deliberate attempts to obfuscate it) ? Amitiés, Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Mar 7 11:46:57 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:46:57 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Dear All -- Milton suggests a "global jurisdiction" for Internet. Have you really thought through the political and legal implications of that ? Maybe with Chinese, Russian and Saudi judges sitting on such a court ? Egads! Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Fri Mar 7 12:37:15 2008 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:37:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47D17D4B.2000604@apc.org> hi all Taking Suresh's approach, I've extracted a few key points from this thread which I think we could focus on in terms of the IGF secretariat's request for workshop proposals to be submitted by the end of April. I wonder Riaz if you anticipated the twists and turns this debate would take when you posted the article? Bertrand: This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our connected world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the challenge is to manage interdependence and interactions.To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the issue of IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major registries for IDN TLDs (particularly gTLDs if any) give the corresponding national courts a specific authority/legal power on all registrants in those TLDs, even if they are not located in that country and have no business with its citizens ? Bertrand: It is exposing the core challenge of competing or overlapping jurisdictions and probably the need for some "globally-applicable public policy principles". Karl: The same legal foundation that was used would also work against a registry (as opposed to a registrar) located in the US. Thus even if the registrar is not in the US, if the name is in .com then the US could use the same legal approach to apply leverage to the registry, Verisign. And since many of the large registries are in the US, that means that much of the DNS is vulnerable to this tactic. Actions like this do not promote the cohesion of the DNS but, instead, create forces tending towards splitting and fragmentation. Meryem: What I would really want to be addressed, and what is the right (and main) question in my opinion, is the resolution of the conflicts of jurisdiction in Internet content-related cases. Bertrand: In cases of competing or overlapping jurisdictions, the key question you want to see addressed, if I understand well, is the transparency and accountability (including capacity for redress and appeal) that should exist at these different levels. It is indeed the right question. Relying merely on the national law or on contracts is not enough to provide a coherent framework. This is the challenge we are facing. Meryem: If this kind of analogy is not wrong, then this simply demonstrates that we're back (or still) facing issues which were already discussed more than 10 years ago: there are continuous attempts to impose an editorial liability on technical intermediaries (at different levels ISP, registrar, registry, etc. one should also consider search engines), simply because it's easier to target them and to have them "do the job" (censorship of contents and/or activities). Either they accept to be the censorship instrument or they would face themselves the penalty. Bret: I don't think most registrants understand the consequences of selecting a services provider -- be it a registrar or a hosting company -- based outside their own country. Isn't this an opportunity to teach? Maybe we should do something on this inside IGF. I would think the governments of the world would welcome the opportunity to teach users about the benefits of locally owned businesses. Milton: I think a better way to ask that question is, how can we, via Internet governance and global public policy making, better realize the potential of the Internet to offer global services without ensnaring end users/customers in the idiosyncracies of territorial jurisdictions? How can we create a global -- and globally accountable -- "jurisdiction"within which these services can be offered? I think this interchange has thrown up a cluster of issues that could usefully form the basis of an IGF workshop on globally-applicable public policy issues and practical strategies for dealing with cross-border internet governance. The value of the debate on this thread for me is the move from a concrete case example to the broader set of public policy issues it reveals, both new (are we seeing the fracturing of sovereignty? do we need a new set of global public policy primciples or is more work on international law related to the internet needed?) and old (getting technical intemediaries to do government's enforcement work, which in another emerging concrete case is the French and British government threats to ISPs to clamp down on filesharing practices - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/22/filesharing). Meryem's point about 'cascade responsibilty' systems is very relevant here. The interchange on the thread also highlights the public education function of the internet governance forum - that there are practical strategies that would be useful for registrars, ISPs and governments in dealing with internet governance problems - in the absence of an overarching public policy framework or sufficent clarity with respect to international law and jurisdcition. For an IGF workshop(s) it may be worth looking at a different approach to the traditional panel discussion. We could have the presentation of a particular case like this one (or a number of cases) and then ask reprsentatives of different stakeholders to respond to the public policy issues thrown up by the case. And see to what extent this adds to or subtracts from the underlying (repressed) issue of enhanced cooperation. I tend to agree with Bertrand and Karl that we are facing the threat of the fracturing of sovereignty which left unaddressed will bring about the fracturing of the internet. Do we have to wait until the return of the repressed for anything to be done about it? A reasonable public policy approach would say: if we can identify problems emerging, then we had better start thinking of solutions and encouraging a debate with the relevant political and regulatory authorities. On practical strategies we could perhaps organise a best practice forum along the lines Bret suggests. fractal or fracturing winter returns who among us is whole? willie Bret Fausett wrote: > On Mar 6, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Another way to put this is that as long as 85% of the DNS registry >> market is located in the US, the US government and US-based law will >> have near-global authority over key aspects of the Internet. > > If 85% of the market is in U.S.-based business, perhaps the best > lesson here is that registrants should move their domain names out of > the U.S. unless they want to be subject to U.S. laws. I don't think > most registrants understand the consequences of selecting a services > provider -- be it a registrar or a hosting company -- based outside > their own country. > > Isn't this an opportunity to teach? Maybe we should do something on > this inside IGF. I would think the governments of the world would > welcome the opportunity to teach users about the benefits of locally > owned businesses. > > -- 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Mar 7 13:18:55 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:18:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E83@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425ACC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> One mechanism which is already in place is the "international cooperation" in the Cybercrime Convention whioch alolows governments (law enforcement) in principle to be active beyond the "national territory". wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Fri 3/7/2008 5:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears ________________________________ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] In my personal view, this is an illustration of the mutation of sovereignty, disconnecting it from the sole physical territory and allowing it to expand in a fractal manner on other territories - or conversely, retract - depending on the influence of the corresponding national actors in the digital sphere. And those national actors are not only the governments : the existence of a dominant player in a specific domain (Verisign, but also a Google, YouTube, MySpace or Facebook) does bring the corresponding government a leverage. But it probably also gives it a special responsibility it did not have before. This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our connected world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the challenge is to manage interdependence and interactions. Good observations, B. Yes, this is the "networked governance" concept that some of us are beginning to look at more systematically from a political science concept. To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the issue of IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major registries for IDN TLDs (particularly gTLDs if any) give the corresponding national courts a specific authority/legal power on all registrants in those TLDs, even if they are not located in that country and have no business with its citizens ? Of course it will. I don't see how a string's status as an IDN alters the nature of the situation, so maybe I am not understanding what you are asking. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Mar 7 13:24:24 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:24:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fractalization ? Message-ID: <954259bd0803071024g620977cfi55dc804b649b39ee@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ronald, Sorry for having used a word like fractalization without providing a clearer explanation. I extract this exchange in a different thread from the original one. Why did I use the notion of fractalization of sovereignty (indeed a bit a neologism here) ? As Milton remarked, the term "fractalization" that I employed indeed comes from the notion of "fractals", a type of strange and often beautiful mathematical functions popularized by Benoît Mandelbrot (Wikipedia bio) in his book "Fractal objects" in 1975. The main characteristic of fractals is their self-similarity : they reproduce similar patterns at various scales. Another one is they have dimensions that are not a whole number, ie : 1.3 or 2.6 instead of 1 (the dimension of a line in the normal 3D euclidian space) or 2 (the dimension of a plane). This means for instance that the surface of a fractal object is not smooth but usually very rugged and that a fractal line is very dented, down to the infinitesimal detail. If this seems abstract, some examples from real life can illustrate the concept, as Mandelbrot himself did in his famous book "The Fractal Geometry of Nature" in 1982. Familiar fractal-like structures are mountains (small rocks have the same aspects as whole mountains), clouds, some plants (including ferns), coastal shores, or vegetables like the Romanesco Broccoli ;-) See more pictures here . Furthermore, interface motifs like dendrites in percolation systems or neuronal connections exhibit a fractal-like pattern. What on earth does this have to do with sovereignty and governance, you may wonder ? This is the idea : National sovereignty, the very foundation of the international order we now live in, is fundamentally based upon physically distinct territories where the exclusive authority of the national government applies. Only exceptions are international treaties and other arrangements among governments. This works very well when the territories are very distinct (and millions of lives have been lost during history in establishing the exact frontier lines) and interactions among people from different territories were relatively rare. But more recently, the development of air transportation reinforcing links between people worldwide and, more than anything, the development of the Web have produced a huge number of unintended side effects, including an increasingly dense web of interactions through cyberspace among actors located in different parts of the world. Still , the basic paradigm is national jurisdictions - and rightly so, in the absence of any other substitue so far. Nonetheless, as the examples that we discuss illustrate, some governmental authorities can have legal means of action through a national actor, towards others that are not formally under their jurisdiction. We witness therefore a de facto extension of their sovereign power on citizens of other territories, outside of a treaty framework, but not on a pure territorial continuity basis. It's more akin to the dendritic interface I was talking about above. The fact that eNom is a US-based registrar gives the capacity to the US governments - or courts - to ask it to suppress the domain name of a spanish citizen. But this would not be possible in the same way if this spanish citizen had registered its domain with a spanish registrar : the US government would have to go to the registry (Verisign in that case). Hence, by registering its domain with a US based registrar, this specific non US citizen has established a link, a connection, that brings it - in part - within the sovereign power of a foreign governement. And by using a .com name, also but maybe to a lesser extent. Conversely, the de facto authority of a european government is reduced, as a perfectly legal activity in Spain is - temporarily - restricted by the action of another governement. This is what I meant when I mentionned a fractalization of sovereignty. In the traditional acception of the term, sovereignty is complete over one's citizens and nil over citizens in other countries (pending agreements to the contrary). Here there is an extension of authority to somebody on another territory, but this authority is not complete : it covers only one very limited type of action (the domain name accessibility) and no other activity of this actor. There is a question of scaling here and in order to be able to handle such problems, the corresponding governance mechanisms must, in my view, be somewhat self-similarly scalable. I hope this has not made the idea even more complex. And apologies to the constitutionalists and specialists of international law on this list for the inevitable approximations or even errors of this rapid response. Best Bertrand P.S. Consider this post as pernoanl food for thought and certainly not as an official position ! :-) On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM, wrote: > Dear Bertrand -- > > How about "fragmentation" ? > > Amitiés, Rony > > > ************** > It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. > (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) > -- ____________________ 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 13:28:18 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:28:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0803071028k6f3f78fdq5f2207389962ca85@mail.gmail.com> Right, but this does not apply only to registrars. And registries based in the US bring the same question. B. On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Bret Fausett wrote: > On Mar 6, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Another way to put this is that as long as 85% of the DNS registry > > market is located in the US, the US government and US-based law will > > have near-global authority over key aspects of the Internet. > > If 85% of the market is in U.S.-based business, perhaps the best > lesson here is that registrants should move their domain names out of > the U.S. unless they want to be subject to U.S. laws. I don't think > most registrants understand the consequences of selecting a services > provider -- be it a registrar or a hosting company -- based outside > their own country. > > Isn't this an opportunity to teach? Maybe we should do something on > this inside IGF. I would think the governments of the world would > welcome the opportunity to teach users about the benefits of locally > owned businesses. > > -- 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 > -- ____________________ 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 7 13:34:43 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:34:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629EA3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Ahem. I did not say "international" I said "global." ________________________________ From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:47 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Dear All -- Milton suggests a "global jurisdiction" for Internet. Have you really thought through the political and legal implications of that ? Maybe with Chinese, Russian and Saudi judges sitting on such a court ? Egads! Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 7 14:03:10 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 20:03:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop on Global Internet Governance - Paris, 23 June 2008 - Announcement and Call for Contributions Message-ID: <746D52F2-9DA6-4AD0-9DB0-666AB283D8FE@ras.eu.org> [Apologies in case of multiple reception.] Dear colleagues, dear all, Please find hereafter and as attached file the preliminary announcement and call for contributions for an international academic workshop on: "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction". This workshop is organized by GigaNet (the Global Internet Governance Academic Network), in cooperation with two main French CNRS pluridisciplinary networks of scholars in Internet-related studies: the ICT and Society (GDR TICS) and Electronic Democracy (DEL) Networks. The workshop will be held in Paris, France, on 23 June 2008 morning. As many of us will converge to Paris to attend the ICANN meeting on this same week, this workshop will be a great opportunity for the international scientific community involved in the field, together with other interested parties, to meet and exchange ideas based on a survey of current academic projects running in the field. Please distribute widely. Best regards, Meryem Marzouki (chair of the workshop organizing committee) -- Meryem Marzouki LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris http://www-polytic.lip6.fr :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction A GigaNet workshop, organized in cooperation with GDR TICS and DEL Networks www.igloo.org/giganet - gdrtics.u-paris10.fr - certop.fr/DEL Paris, 23 June 2008 Morning Preliminary Announcement and Call for Contributions The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) invites you to participate in a scholar workshop to be held in Paris, France, on the morning of June 23rd. This workshop is organized in cooperation with two main French pluridisciplinary networks of scholars in Internet-related studies: the ICT and Society (GDR TICS) and Electronic Democracy (DEL) Networks. The purpose of the workshop, the first of its sort, is to allow scholars involved in Internet Governance-related research to describe their ongoing research projects to other scholars in the field, in order to share ideas, forge possible collaborations, and identify emerging research themes in the field. Scholars from various academic disciplines and all regions of the world are welcome to contribute to this reflexive exercise, with the long-term objective of collectively building this interdisciplinary research field. What is global Internet governance and what it is not? Are there any differences in the way this process is understood, defined and implemented in different regions of the world? Is it sensitive to political and cultural backgrounds and traditions, and if so to which extent and in which ways? How is Internet governance different from, and related to, global governance of other information and communication technologies? What could be the invariants of a global governance process, irrespective of the domain area it addresses? What are the national and regional projects and networks currently pursuing research on Global Internet Governance? Is there any academic syllabus or other education program dedicated to these issues? These are among the many questions to be discussed by the workshop participants. Please send to the workshop organizing committee chair, Meryem Marzouki (Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr) by April 15, 2008, your name, affiliation, e-mail address and CV along with no more than 500 words describing your ongoing projects. Rather than featuring academic paper presentations, the workshop aims at providing a survey of current academic activities in the field of global Internet governance. Invitees selected by the organizing committee for participation at round-table discussions will be notified by May 15, 2008. Attendance to the workshop is free and open to all interested parties. Organizing Committtee Eric Brousseau (GDR TICS), U. Paris X, France; Divina Frau-Meigs (GigaNet), U. Paris III, France; Nanette Levinson (GigaNet), American U., USA; Meryem Marzouki (GigaNet), CNRS, France; Milton Mueller (GigaNet), Syracuse U., USA; Thierry Vedel (DEL), CNRS, France; Rolf Weber (GigaNet), U. Zürich, Switzerland. NOTE GigaNet will hold its third annual Symposium in India, in conjunction with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The call for papers will be issued by end March 2008. :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ParisGigaNetWorkshop.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55143 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Mar 7 14:09:33 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:09:33 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Okay, Milton, and how does that distinction without an apparent difference that I can see work in practice exactly ? Maybe business and civil society should run their own private world court system ? Bests, Rony Ahem. I did not say “international” I said “global.”   From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:47 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears   Dear All -- Milton suggests a "global jurisdiction" for Internet. Have you really thought through the political and legal implications of that ? Maybe with Chinese, Russian and Saudi judges sitting on such a court ? Egads! Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Mar 7 14:40:55 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:40:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629EA3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Is this hairsplitting? I see a differences between intergovernmental, international and global. Why not to discuss an option of a "global mutlistakeholder machanism", where governments have not more than ome third? w -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Fri 3/7/2008 7:34 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KovenRonald at aol.com Subject: RE: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Ahem. I did not say "international" I said "global." ________________________________ From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:47 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Dear All -- Milton suggests a "global jurisdiction" for Internet. Have you really thought through the political and legal implications of that ? Maybe with Chinese, Russian and Saudi judges sitting on such a court ? Egads! Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Mar 7 14:43:10 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:43:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E85@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E85@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47D19ACE.5020801@cavebear.com> Milton L Mueller wrote: > I think a better way to ask that question is, how can we, via Internet > governance and global public policy making, better realize the potential > of the Internet to offer global services without ensnaring end > users/customers in the idiosyncracies of territorial jurisdictions? This is the question that I have been asking for a decade+. What I always seem to come to is that we are moving away from a world in which the basis of plenary power is no longer geographic boundaries as established by things such as the Treaty/Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the Congress/Treaty of Vienna (1815). Rather, perhaps dating with the rise of multi-national corporations since 1945 and, more recently, the internet, the basis of authority seems to be shifting from geography to subject matter. This has happened before. For instance, if we look back to much of Europe during the 15th century (and earlier, and later) we see a world in which for temporal matters there was a local sovereign: king, duke, cosmic muffin, whatever-you-call-it. And for spiritual matters there was the church hierarchy with its peak at Rome or Constantinople, depending whether you were part of the western or eastern church. There were clearly conflicts between these two sources of power - and accommodations (such as the way that the church handed convicted heretics over to the "secular arm" for processing [how's that for a euphemism?].) ICANN, for example, is clearly an accommodation through which the executive arm of the US government is doing an end-run to exercise, via a private "secular arm", powers which it has not obtained from the legislative branch of the US government. This, like Blackwater, is a degeneration of constitutional principles. We can anticipate that this technique will become more common as these non-territorial based systems of power arise and are able to obtain mutual benefit through tacit relationships with geographic based systems of power. The idea of public-private partnership is somewhat of an oxymoron, or perhaps a fraud, in that, in practice, it appears to result in the worst of both - the plenary power of government exercised through the unaccountable hands of private actors - rather than the best of both. We learned much from the folks of the 17th and early 18th centuries how to constrain the exercise of power within a geographically based system. One task we are facing today is how to constrain the exercise of power in a world in which geographic nations and subject-matter authorities scratch one another's backs in order to evade "local" limitations (again, an example comes to mind in the way that the US has evaded domestic laws against torture by laundering its actions through other nations and hiding it under the euphemism "rendition".) So we need to take a big step back and consider that we are dealing here with power and authority. The fact that we are mainly dealing with it in the context of the internet is merely incidental to those questions. In my experience the cliche that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is something worth remembering. And one cure to this is to retain some sort of "off" button to any subject-matter based authority (I'm kinda putting geographic ones as beyond hope). How does one create these "off" buttons? One way is to clearly define duties and constraints - constitutions - for every body. Another is to keep the bodies small. Multi-purpose bodies, such as ICANN, are able to do a Sally Rand fan dance to refocus the public view away from particular naughty bits. A third method is to create sunset limitations that automatically undo what the body has done after a period of time and thus forcing periodic re-argument and re-confirmation of previous decisions. And finally, there must be a means through which the public, not "stakeholders" but rather the public without qualification, when it becomes "mad as hell" can put its collective head out its window and yell "I'm not going to take it anymore!" We have seen, through both ICANN and the IGF process that the idea of a public voice scares the beejeebers out of many professional bureaucrats and they will work like angry bees to keep the public out of bodies that are nominally supposed to be for the benefit of that public. --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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 7 17:25:24 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:25:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629ED9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Sorry for being too cryptic, too rhetorical and a tad visionary. The idea was that we develop new global institutions and not rely on national judges applying national law. ICANN is an existence proof - whatever one thinks of it, warts and all, there are no judges from authoritarian nations (only the USA) making decisions for it - although the disturbing increase in the authority of GAC and the growing willingness of ICANN management to kow tow to those in power, including such governments, is worth noting. Rony, here is what I said: How can we better realize the potential of the Internet to offer global services without ensnaring end users/customers in the idiosyncracies of territorial jurisdictions? How can we create a global -- and globally accountable -- "jurisdiction" within which these services can be offered? It's a vision of potential, nothing more nothing less. To ask "how does it work in practice" is indeed the question that must be faced and answered. But if you don't know where you are headed, if you have no vision of where things could go, that is just as dangerous as having a vision of possibility and no clear idea of how to implement it. ________________________________ From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:10 PM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; KovenRonald at aol.com Cc: Embench at aol.com Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Okay, Milton, and how does that distinction without an apparent difference that I can see work in practice exactly ? Maybe business and civil society should run their own private world court system ? Bests, Rony Ahem. I did not say "international" I said "global." From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:47 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Dear All -- Milton suggests a "global jurisdiction" for Internet. Have you really thought through the political and legal implications of that ? Maybe with Chinese, Russian and Saudi judges sitting on such a court ? Egads! Rony Koven ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Mar 7 17:50:07 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:50:07 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Wolfgang, Milton Mueller spoke of a "jurisdiction." My dictionary defines that as 1. a legal power to hear and make determinations of cases, 2 . an authority or sovereign power to govern, control or legislate, 3. a sphere of authority. And Milton speaks of a "global jurisdiction." What could that possibly be but an international court, if not an authority to govern on a global scale? There's no way any of that could be anything but governmental. Civil society people have fallen into a kind of anarchists' mentality in which they imagine they can escape the authority of governments. It's playing with fire because it just won't happen. What will happen is governmental or intergovernmental assertions of authority -- jurisdiction, if you will. And Milton Mueller is willy-nilly helping to create a conceptual framework for such authority to be asserted. I reckpon that a multi-stakeholder authority is bound to turn into a mechanism in which non-governmental elements are simpy coopted into legitimizing governmental authority. It's a little like all the self-regulatory bodies privatized executors of governmental functions. And then there's the the latest approach, less than a decade old, of co-regulation. That's when distinctions between private and public break down completely, and non-governmental elements join up with governments. That used to be called corporatism, the political theory of Italian-style fascism. A little realism is called for. Messy disorderliness allows freedom in the interstices. Attempts to create order lead straight to assertions of authority. It's unlikely to be the authority of civil society colleagues who share one's values. It will more likely be the policeman's esthetic sense of what constitutes order -- nothing allowed out of line. I would have thought that you, Wolfgang, would be amongst the first to understand how that is likely to work. The libertarian approach must include a fine sense of when to leave well enough alone. Probably the worst outcome for Milton would be that he actually gets what he says he wants. Regards, Rony ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Mar 7 18:04:33 2008 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:04:33 EST Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Message-ID: Dear Milton -- Thanks for elaborating. I just elaborated some of my thoughts in a message, sent first to Wolfgang and which I just a moment ago put out to all, with an added last graf. I trust you do understand that there's really nothing personal or ad hominem -- just a matter of arguing things out with real persons who represent positions. Best regards, Rony PS karl at cavebear.com's last comment on this thread included some interesting thoughts. ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 7 18:29:33 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 04:59:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <47D17D4B.2000604@apc.org> References: <02c201c87edc$a7c72410$f7556c30$@net> <47CF0668.3070708@cavebear.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E46@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47D17D4B.2000604@apc.org> Message-ID: <008101c880ab$1b0b7dc0$51227940$@net> Re your answer to Miryam - Those issues never went away and will never go away. There's no way we can isolate the Internet from traditional governance mechanisms, or sovereignty issues. And re your answer to MM - Increased global oversight will not produce less government involvement. It may produce more authoritarian government involvement. And probably not much of a role for civil society - especially that part of civil society (including a section of the list) that seems to view governance as a divine right without taking the trouble to actually understand the issues they're asking to govern. I fully support the idea of this workshop as long as we can find - and suggest - a way to prevent trade restrictions such as the ones with Cuba becoming long arm enforcement when applied in the context of the Internet. And as long as we can find ways for civ soc to actively work with and accept the technical community instead of shying away from it. These two communities need each other a lot more than extremists on either side think. For workshop content - panels are absolutely what we do not need here. On the other hand, if we can have a working group of sort spread over 3..4 days - probably with public audience - what I have found much more effective in throwing up ideas is either speed exchanges (small, focused roundtables) or better still, as the focus is on coming up with language for a best practice document or CS statement, getting people together in a room, full of wall mounted tearsheets / flipcharts, each of which asks a critical question. There are also marker pens ready for whoever wants to write his thoughts under each question - one sentence at a time, any language he chooses .. this is not "wording draft" stage yet but key phrases are welcome of course. Then the rapporteurs for each question (chosen from a pool of volunteers shall we say) go around with stickers (or red markers), and stick one sticker / add one star per idea they like, to highlight it. The tearsheets are then taken away at the end of the session, ideas counted. Very democratic, and I have found it surprisingly productive - it is the method we use at MAAWG (www.maawg.org) to draft best practice documents such as these: http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments srs From: Willie Currie [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears Meryem: If this kind of analogy is not wrong, then this simply demonstrates that we're back (or still) facing issues which were already discussed more than 10 years ago: there are continuous attempts to impose an editorial liability on technical intermediaries (at different levels ISP, registrar, registry, etc. one should also consider search engines), simply because it's easier to target them and to have them "do the job" (censorship of contents and/or activities). Either they accept to be the censorship instrument or they would face themselves the penalty. Milton: I think a better way to ask that question is, how can we, via Internet governance and global public policy making, better realize the potential of the Internet to offer global services without ensnaring end users/customers in the idiosyncracies of territorial jurisdictions? How can we create a global -- and globally accountable -- "jurisdiction"within which these services can be offered? For an IGF workshop(s) it may be worth looking at a different approach to the traditional panel discussion. We could have the presentation of a particular case like this one (or a number of cases) and then ask reprsentatives of different stakeholders to respond to the public policy issues thrown up by the case. And see to what extent this adds to or subtracts from the underlying (repressed) issue of enhanced cooperation. I tend to agree with Bertrand and Karl that we are facing the threat of the fracturing of sovereignty which left unaddressed will bring about the fracturing of the internet. Do we have to wait until the return of the repressed for anything to be done about it? A reasonable public policy approach would say: if we can identify problems emerging, then we had better start thinking of solutions and encouraging a debate with the relevant political and regulatory authorities. On practical strategies we could perhaps organise a best practice forum along the lines Bret suggests. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Mar 7 13:09:37 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:09:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: <2C3CB7F8-6F11-41BD-8D40-2D3F9E7B63BE@psg.com> References: <20080303105445.GA20044@nic.fr> <2C3CB7F8-6F11-41BD-8D40-2D3F9E7B63BE@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080307180937.GB20626@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 01:55:38PM +0100, Avri Doria wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > Well there is a channel; Internet-drafts (ID). And I believe that a > well written, well thought out ID that spoke of the user > requirements, and which created by a group of non-trolls, could get > a fair hearing. OK, I want to believe that, too. So, next step is, who would be interested by actual work on such a document? I give here a few personal ideas, not to limit the discussion or to force a specific viewpoint, but to make it more concrete, by providing examples. [Note they are requirments for the general Internet architecture, NOT for a given network's setup (for instance, people have the right to put a firewall in front of their network, despite the second and third requirments).] Such a document could list user requirments such as: * no provider lock-in. If there is a market of providers, then user's choice is a necessity to avoid oligopoles. Technical solutions that limit the ability of the user to switch providers are bad. Counter-example, an architecture where all IP addresses would be PA (Provider-Aggregeatable) would create a serious lock-in (although not an 100 % lock-in since renumbering your machines is still possible, while painful). * freedom to create and deploy new applications, even applications which were not planned at the beginning. Counter-example: I've recently seen a proposal for a "future Internet" based on applications, with an architecture centered around a small set if usages (and, since "the code is the law", such an architecture would probably prevent innovation). * freedom to be called as well as calling. There are other uses of the Internet than browsing the Web. Some of these uses require the ability of the ordinary user to be the responder of a communication, not only the initiator. This should be possible on personal machines, without renting a dedicated box. Counter-example: NAT seriously threatens that. There is a high risk that, a few years from now, the typical individual user connection, and may be the SOHO as well, will be with private addresses only. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 8 11:04:57 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:04:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629EE7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Rony, your biggest problem is that you seem to lack any vision regarding how things might change for the better, and all your ideas amount to in the end is a rationalization of the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is getting worse and worse from a libertarian and a democratic standpoint. So standing pat, changing nothing, is not an option, if you really stand for the values WPFC claims to stand for. Unless you are happy with unrestricted government surveillance, growing content filtering and censorship, and growing national assertions of terrirtorial jurisdiction. Let me give you a clear example of the contradictions - or perhaps just laziness - in your thinking. My dictionary defines that as 1. a legal power to hear and make determinations of cases, 2 . an authority or sovereign power to govern, control or legislate, 3. a sphere of authority. And Milton speaks of a "global jurisdiction." What could that possibly be but an international court, if not an authority to govern on a global scale? There's no way any of that could be anything but governmental. Well, I already raised the example of ICANN. As seems to be your habit, you eliminated this topic from your response, perhaps because it's inconvenient for your argument. Now in this case I am not holding up ICANN as a good or bad example, but purely as a fact which needs to be explained, and as an existence proof of institutional innovation and where it might lead us. We could have used existing intergovernmental organizations to do what ICANN does. But we didn't. Fortunately there was no Rony Koven around to tell us otherwise. (Interestingly, it is an institution that you have been at pains to defend from most critiques. Perhaps that is only because it is now part of the status quo) It is global in its authority, it is not "an international court" that gives authoritarian governments more power than they already have, on the contrary, by shifting some decisions to this global nongovernmental authority many of those govts are quite upset about it. While there has certainly been an increasing assertion of governmental authority, the initial push to do things this way probably reduced the amount of direct govtal control - and if the original design had been adhered to, we would be even further along those lines, with a democratic Board election mechanism and an end to US unilateral oversight. So, when you say: I reckpon that a multi-stakeholder authority is bound to turn into a mechanism in which non-governmental elements are simpy coopted into legitimizing governmental authority. It's a little like all the self-regulatory bodies privatized executors of governmental functions. And then there's the the latest approach, less than a decade old, of co-regulation. That's when distinctions between private and public break down completely, and non-governmental elements join up with governments. That used to be called corporatism, the political theory of Italian-style fascism. Apparently you have not been reading my own critiques of multi-stakeholder ideology, or my long-term critiques of the growing informal power of GAC within ICANN, or perhaps anything else I've written over the past ten years which shows that I (and many others, e.g. Karl and his critique of "stakeholderism") are quite aware of these dangers. Of course these kinds of dangers exist. No one is saying it will be easy or simple. But where are you going with it, Rony? What institutional options do you propose other than....doing nothing? And isn't it clear that various powerful economic and political interests will take us if we do nothing? Civil society people have fallen into a kind of anarchists' mentality in which they imagine they can escape the authority of governments. Mostly this is nonsense -- a completely wrong and unfair argument. What we are debating here is precisely the development of new forms of governmentality at the global level. In fact, Internet has and will continue to escape some aspects of the authority of governments, a fact which has both positive (undermining censorship) and negative (cybercrime) aspects. We have a new kind of governance problem and thus we need new kinds of governance institutions. It's playing with fire There is no way not to play with fire. Decisions about Internet governance are being made and will continue to be made whether we discuss it or not. What will happen is governmental or intergovernmental assertions of authority -- jurisdiction, if you will. And Milton Mueller is willy-nilly helping to create a conceptual framework for such authority to be asserted. So now YOU are the one implying that we can escape governmental assertions of authority. A little realism is called for. Messy disorderliness allows freedom in the interstices. I agree with this, it is a very important insight. Attempts to create order lead straight to assertions of authority. Authority will be asserted whenever there are social conflicts that have to be resolved. That is just a fact of societal life. Again, the trick is to do it in a way that preserves essential values such as freedom. The libertarian approach must include a fine sense of when to leave well enough alone. I don't see much that is "well enough" in current developments. Let's see if you can make a credible case that the status quo - conceived dynamically, because it is actively moving in certain directions which are anything but "libertarian" - should be left alone. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 8 11:54:40 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 08:54:40 -0800 Subject: FW: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... Message-ID: <001c01c8813d$2e1bc860$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Thanks Garth for you very interesting commentary on my original post, Morfin's somewhat parallel discussion and overall the state of being on line and its relationship to "governance through the Internet". As I've said in this electronic space several times in the past this latter i.e. "governance through the Internet" is a subject which I consider to be of rather more interest and longer term significance than "governance of the Internet" which is the current pre-occupation of the Internet Governance list (and caucus) whatever the possible ambiguity of the name). (Recognizing of course, that "governance through the Internet" is intimately connected with "governance of the Internet" but in the form of "figure" (in relation to "ground")). Let me make a few other comments interspersed within an edited version of your note... -----Original Message----- From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] Sent: March 3, 2008 9:41 AM To: governance Cc: Michael Gurstein; Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... Someone on this list once identified the only true TLD as "the individual." I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE RELATED THIS NOTION TO "ENUM" BUT I THINK THERE IS A VERY CLOSE CONNECTION... IF WE DO MAKE THIS CONNECTION I.E. THAT THERE IS (OR QUITE SOON WILL BE) A UNIQUE PERSONAL IDENTIFIER IN THE ELECTRONIC WORLD ("TELEPHONE" NUMBER, URL, IP NUMBER, TLD ...?) AND THAT THIS IS "TRANSFERRABLE"/USABLE THROUGH THE RANGE OF INCREASINGLY CONVERGENT MEDIA THEN AT SOME POINT THERE IS THE POSSIBIILTY/INEVITABILITY OF AS YOU SAY, THE ONLY TRUE TLD BECOMING "THE INDIVIDUAL"... AND THIS, AS I GUESS YOU ARE IMPLYING, CERTAINLY CASTS THE DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE (AND LONGER TERM GOVERNANCE) OF ICANN IN A RATHER DIFFERENT LIGHT! ... I became curious to see what might be revealed about the future of organizational interactions in Internet Governance by axially mapping these two continuums against each other. I attach the graphic I produced to do this as a pdf file below. I gave it the title, "The only true TLD is the Individual," because, in effect, the graphic illustrates a scenario, and that's a good title for a possible future. My primary conclusion from this analysis is that we are defining the necessary stake holders in Internet Governance far too narrowly. I'M WONDERING HOW CURRENTLY ACTIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA OF DIGITAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT (AND PARTICULARLY THE EVIDENT TENSION BETWEEN THOSE WHO SEE INSTITUTIONS AS THE GUARANTORS OF DIGITAL IDENTITY AND THOSE WHO SEE THE INDIVIDUAL MAINTAINING THAT ROLE FOR THEMSELVES...) MIGHT CONNECT HERE... This next part of this note is going to seem like a segue at first. But it will allow me to add in my own key driver - the nature and role of community online. On first coming into the Internet, it was apparent to me that distributed collaboration in community online was becoming a significant factor in social organization. I still see no reason to alter that faith. Morfin challenged his readers to supply their own visions. Here is mine ... Effective communities are composed of individuals who choose to act in a common space and who share a sense of commitment and responsibility to others in that space. Communities are dynamic and self-organizing. This is the basis of their formation and governance. Acting to realize the opportunities of community as it goes online requires a vision of open systems of access, design, practice, and policy debate. The internet as designed expresses that vision directly. The internet is a global commons and a public good that mirrors the governance of community online. It is fundamental to the networked structure of a Learning Society. Changes to internet governance should not impede the development of the internet as a commons. HAVE YOU READ MY NEW BOOK... IF SO, HOW DOES WHAT I'M ARGUING THERE FIT INTO WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING HERE... http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00012372/01/WHAT_IS_COMMUNITY_INFORMATICS_r eading.pdf I have looked in several places that should reasonably supply a useful definition of e-governance and found that they don't. So here below, for the purposes of ICT4D and people-centric distributed governance, is my own definition: "E-governance is the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power by various levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and gain a greater voice in the public decision making process. E- governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of interaction." I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS GARTH AS E-GOVERNANCE FOR ME IS NOT ABOUT GOVERNMENTS SHARING WITH CITIZENS THE OPPORTUNITY TO "INFLUENCE" (I.E. TOP DOWN) BUT RATHER CITIZENS DIRECTLY SHARING (VIA ICTS) IN THE PROCESS OF GOVERNANCE WITH EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HOWEVER THAT MIGHT BE ORGANIZED AND WHATEVER THE RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE OF THIS WITH EXISTING REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES. Being online allows us to see more clearly a key shift in our assumptions about the structure of society - that a "person" is a network in a society of networks. The scale of relationship is fractal, not linear. The identities we assume in relationship are particular to the situations that occur. They emerge from, or are grounded in, the choices we make. The "individual" in these "situated" relationships is not classically isolated person assuming a contract that is imposed by the society they inhabit. They are themselves an emergent composite of physical and social relationships that are networked. We don't just adapt to the world as if it were a fixed thing. Interdependently, we participate in the world and thus change its nature. We then adapt to an altered nature in which we have participated. Interaction has consequences. Netizens accept responsibility for the consequences of their interactions. IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THIS AGAIN IS DIRECTLY CONSISTENT (AND A DEEPENING) OF THE APPROACH I'VE TRIED TO ARTICULATE IN "WHAT IS COMMUNITY INFORMATICS... What is really at issue, or central to that looming necessary public debate, is identity online or the autonomous expression of the self within a fractal structure of social organization that is truly different. It's the individual who decides to connect and it's the Internet (TCP/IP) that merely makes the connection. It is vital to hold fast to that simplicity. AS ABOVE, BEST, MG GG On 18-Feb-08, at 10:42 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Post-WSIS policy discussions were (at least informally) meant to be > proceeded with on the governance side through the IGF and on the > ICT4D side > through the Global Alliance for ICT4D (i.e. the GAID which morphed > from the > UN's ICT4D Task Force when that agency sunsetted in December 2005... > > Since then, the IGF has captured more or less all of the attention of > CS, and seems well on the way to becoming some sort of "agency" and > focal point > for all forms and measures of post-WSIS substantive policy > discussions cf. > Don Maclean's recent post on Sustainable Development and the IGF, > and Tom > Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a Cities TLD theme. > > In the meantime the GAID publicly abjured itself from a "policy role" > (the Santa Clara meeting), attempted to establish itself as a > programmatic/implementation body (through its partnership with > Intel and > through its adoption (as its own) of various already existing > programmatic > initiatives (Telecentres.org, the African connectivity > initiative)). In > addition, the GAID adopted for itself a completely non-transparent and > top-down governance structure and only infrequently surfaced as the > sponsor/co-sponsor of various events in various places with little > coherence, virtually no frameworks for non-centralized > participation, and > little visible contribution to ICT4D "policy". > > In the absence of any "there" being "there", the IGF has, through its > own vague adoption of a "development" mandate (and "access" as a > theme) > begun a > measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space. > ........... > > To conclude this ramble, I do not think that the IGF is an appropriate > forum for ICT4D policy discussion (not including the very very small > sub- section > where ICT4D and IG issues narrowly defined overlap...) > > The communities (particularly on the CS side) do not overlap in > representation, knowledge bases, interest, or overall desired > outcomes (for > the events). ICT4D needs to have its own policy forum (I guess a > subsidiary > spun off group from the IGF if properly constituted might work) and > particularly one where the necessary voices of grassroots ICT4D > folks can > make themselves heard. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Mar 8 12:56:50 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:56:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0803070047p4d29e3ccj797c0740db37fd36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050803080956p45e46937raecbf390d85e99ab@mail.gmail.com> Dear Bertrand and All: Indeed Issues of *virtual geography* abound (I think of this when reading Michael's enriching community posts, and as early as a few decades ago (in litigation) encountered e.g. in online defamation cases and whether judges consider that they have jurisdiction - can bring cases into their courtroom (or, that is, wish to). My experience in courts is that the reach of the court is pretty narrowly construed in the USA as compared with some *physical) places in Europe, at least (and still) with currently seated judges, but jurisdiction is a HUGE issue. Glad to read the posts here, though at a slant with *CyberLibel,*CyberStalking, e-IdentityTheft, or other aspects of Reputation Management, etc.. But however enumerated, these legal sub-domains are included in *Human Rights* concerns, as are many commonly embedded otherwise in *Development*discussions. Can *Security* be far b ehind? I hope we'll find a place at Conferences for all of these inter and intra cultural considerations, regarding one region's influence over others, wherever in the *spatial/temporal* world they may be.. Just some thoughts from here on current and quite interesting discourse, With very best wishes, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. *Respectful Interfaces*. For I.D. only here: Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N. On 3/7/08, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Milton, > > Following your remarks to McTim below, and supposing this indeed is done > through the courts, the interesting set of questions here is : > > 1) Would/should a foreign registrar comply with a court order from the US > ? > 2) And if it failed to do so, would the court order Verisign to do it > (block > the domain name) ? > 3) Should Verisign do it, does that mean that all .com registrants become > indirectly subject to US law, not only in terms of appropriate strings, > but > also in terms of the very activity they run, even on servers not located > on > US territory and serving customers outside of the US ? > > This is a real and useful discussion. Nothing to do with the "oversight of > the root" via IANA. It is exposing the core challenge of competing or > overlapping jurisdictions and probably the need for some > "globally-applicable public policy principles". I believe nobody has the > full complete answer. In my *personal* view, this is an illustration of > the > mutation of sovereignty, disconnecting it from the sole physical territory > and allowing it to expand in a fractal manner on other territories - or > conversely, retract - depending on the influence of the corresponding > national actors in the digital sphere. And those national actors are not > only the governments : the existence of a dominant player in a specific > domain (Verisign, but also a Google, YouTube, MySpace or Facebook) does > bring the corresponding government a leverage. But it probably also gives > it > a special responsibility it did not have before. > > This notion of "fractal sovereignty" is harder to handle than the > traditional territory-based one but probably more adapted to our connected > world than the notion of strict subsidiarity : the challenge is to manage > interdependence and interactions. > > To enrich the discussion, I'd like to put in perspective here the issue of > IDNs. Will the physical location of the future major registries for IDN > TLDs > (particularly gTLDs if any) give the corresponding national courts a > specific authority/legal power on all registrants in those TLDs, even if > they are not located in that country and have no business with its > citizens > ? > > These are deep policy issues and I'd be interested in comments on those > challenges. Because they are challenges for governments too. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > > > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) > > > would take the same action. Probably not. > > > > The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied with a > > legal order. > > > > .com is located in Virginia. > > > > > Then the question (that I > > > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com > > > zone in such a case. > > > > > > I would hope not. > > > > > > > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 8 17:44:55 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:44:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <47D316E7.4080107@rits.org.br> McT, the servers are in the Bahamas. --c.a. McTim wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Fine, there might be horrid cases elsewhere, but there is no >> justification for yet anoter violation of rights by the US government >> regarding the Internet space. BTW, the servers were not in US territory, > > Which servers, web or DNS? > >> and the company is based in Spain. >> >> As I said, anyone who purchases a generic domain name is a risk-taker >> regarding the USA's "reasons of State". > > In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it > remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) > would take the same action. Probably not. Then the question (that I > think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com > zone in such a case. > > I would hope not. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Mar 8 17:43:31 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:43:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF secretariat clarification on the 50%-50% rule for the MAG Message-ID: <47D31693.9010206@rits.org.br> Dear people, in response to my request, in the MAG mail list, for clarification, Markus Kummer provided a thorough review of the issue and authorized me to copy it to the governance list. Below is Markus' reply to my msg (which is just after Markus's). fraternal regards --c.a. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [igf_members] clarification Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:52:30 +0100 From: Markus KUMMER To: ca at rits.org.br CC: IGF Members Dear Carlos, You are right insofar as there was never any formal decision taken on the composition of the MAG by anyone but by the Secretary-General himself. As you also, rightly, point out, there is nothing in the Tunis Agenda on how the IGF should operate, except some vague references that it should build on existing structures, be light-weight and based on multistakeholder cooperation. For this reason we held broad-based consultations on these matters two years ago. As was to be expected, different views were held by different actors. Brazil, followed by other developing countries, first formulated an approach that should be based on WSIS structures, that is on three different bureaus - one for governments, one for private sector and one for civil society. These three bureaus should meet separately and, occasionally, jointly. The governmental bureau would be composed of twenty members (four for each region) while the other two bureaus should be composed of ten members each. Eventually, this proposal was endorsed by the G77. (All regional groups indicated that, based on past experience, they needed to be represented by at least four members to establish a sub-regional balance.) WEOG countries, and, as far as I can remember, also private sector, spoke in favour of a small programme committee of about 10-15 members. I can't remember in detail what civil society proposed, but they were mostly in favour of an integrated multistakeholder body. The Secretary-General found a formula to bridge the different proposals - on the one hand, the G77 with regard to the the overall balance and all the others with regard to an integrated group. The name chosen for the group was also a compromise - neither 'bureau' nor 'programme committee' This worked remarkably well. As last week's discussions showed, nobody is perfectly happy with this formula - some governments find that governments are under-represented while non-governmental actors find that governments are over-represented. At least it seems that everybody is equally unhappy - usually this is a sign of a good compromise. The original draft of the summary report reflected this delicate balance. The Chairman held the view that this formula was not open for discussion and finally, at the request of a member of the group, we settled for the formulation we have now (which, I admit, may be somewhat ambiguous.) One final remark for your consideration: after Athens, there was a general feeling that it was important to increase efforts to engage governments more, as governments had been somewhat reluctant to accept the informal nature of the interactions with other stakeholders. Any change in the composition would not be helpful in this regard. If you are interested, you can read the history of the discussions we had two years ago as it is recorded in real-time transcription on our Web site. I hope this helps. Best regards Markus >Dear all, > >I tried to track info on a decision which supposedly determined the >50%-50% rule, as stated by the Chair in our last MAG meeting as a >given, >and could not find any formal statement establishing this rule. >Certainly not in the official Tunis documents. > >Could this be clarified by the secretariat? > >fraternal rgds > >--c.a. > >-- > >Carlos A. Afonso >direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor) >conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) >******************************************************************* >Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com >software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo >Digital. Para mais informações: >www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br >******************************************************************* > > > >_______________________________________________ >igf_members mailing list >igf_members at intgovforum.org >http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.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 ca at rits.org.br Sat Mar 8 17:48:04 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:48:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47CEA3CE.1010808@iafrica.com> <47D01180.6070404@rits.org.br> <00a201c87fa3$95bc1fb0$c1345f10$@net> <47D01C3B.9020304@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901629E48@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47D317A4.7040102@rits.org.br> In any case, if would be illegal, since he is not a lawyer. Or is he? :) --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > No offense, but I would advise you all not to rely on McTim for legal > advice. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> In this case, the registrar took action, not the registry, so it >> remains to be seen if a non-US .com registrar (and non-US registrant) >> would take the same action. Probably not. > > The action was not taken by the registrar, the registrar complied with a > legal order. > > .com is located in Virginia. > >> Then the question (that I >> think you are raising) is would VRSN remove the records from the .com >> zone in such a case. >> >> I would hope not. >> > > It is not up to VeriSign. It is up to the courts. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 8 18:00:43 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:00:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D31A9B.6030808@rits.org.br> "Multistakeholder" is not in the Merriam-W either... :) --c.a. KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > Dear Bertrand -- > > After consulting my Webster's dictionary, I fear "fractalization" isn't a > word in English (tho maybe you've just invented it). > > One could speak of "fracturing of soveregnty" or "fractioning" or > "disaggregation" or "disintegration" of sovereignty. > > But I think Meryem is right. Why not just stick to the idea that jurisdiction > should be execised by the country of origin of the content (altho in > cyberspace, establishing country of origin isn't necessarily easy, especially when > there are deliberate attempts to obfuscate it) ? > > Amitiés, Rony Koven > > > ************** > It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice > on AOL Money & Finance. > > (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 8 18:22:50 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:22:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears In-Reply-To: <47D31A9B.6030808@rits.org.br> References: <47D31A9B.6030808@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <558D3196-8193-4BE0-BDE2-F73E46FBE323@psg.com> On 8 Mar 2008, at 18:00, Carlos Afonso wrote: > "Multistakeholder" is not in the Merriam-W either... :) ]well then we obviously have more work to do! also need the variant 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 dan at musicunbound.com Sun Mar 9 03:25:18 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:25:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] What is CS (was: "bridge"...) In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <5fmg5b$84l94h@mail.servidor.unam.mx> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 5:40 PM -0500 3/3/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >... By >definition, MS ideology requires stakeholders to be categorized into >groups to achieve representation, but of course since we are dealing >with people who hold various overlapping roles in society the categories >are not and cannot be mutually exclusive. Just popping in from Tumbolia(*) for a brief hit-and-run (can't really track the full firehose, just sipping at one corner), and this thread caught my attention. Milton's statement here is one of the most cogent comments I've seen on the whole thread. Some questions to consider when dealing with CS categorization: - Are *individuals* categorized as CS, or *institutions*? And when does an individual represent an institution, if the institution is categorized as CS? (In policy science this is the "unit of measurement" question.) Conflating the two will lead to confusion; clarity requires choosing one or the other. - What is the "essential" characteristic of CS that drives specific boundaries of inclusion? Is it "the public interest"? This is what it seems to me, but I really can't quite say (perhaps no one can say quite yet, however this might be a place to start). The historical evolution of the concept seems tied to certain formal characteristics of particular institutions such as "non-profit corporation" but that is probably not an absolutely clear map, IMHO. For example, I do not consider ICANN a CS institution, even though it is incorporated as a "charitable" non-profit. ICANN has some characteristics of a trade association (which is devoted to the interests of a particular for-profit industry, not the general public interest), and some characteristics of a quasi-governmental agency (it has a certain jurisdiction of legal or quasi-legal domain over which it has authority, in a sort of hazy mixture of de juris and de facto origin). It is peculiar to me that ICANN remains incorporated as a charitable organization under 501(c)3(**). (501(c)3 is the proper subset of all non-profit orgs incorporated under Section 501 that is most commonly associated with public-interest NPOs.) I can see it as 501, but not really (c)3 -- I would have assumed otherwise and it was a surprise to discover this. It would take a legal expert to determine how ICANN's operation fits the 501(c)3 characteristics. This is clearly one point of contention between defenders and critics of ICANN as "CS". But even if one grants that ICANN might be "partly CS" I would also judge it as "partly not CS" because of the industry-related and quasi-governmental functions it assumes in the course of its operations. ICANN is the essence of a hybrid in the [public, for-profit, non-profit] delineation of institutional domains, IMHO, embodying perhaps all three realms in important ways, not as a clearly-delineated partnership but as a smoothly integrated multi-purpose institution. So in retrospect I guess I am saying that not all 501(c)3 institutions are per se CS, or should be treated as CS for the purposes of IGF MS structures, even though there is probably a high level of overlap. I would personally view ICANN as a counter-example to treating 501(C)3 status as a criterion for classification of CS, thus rejecting that criterion as a strict tool for such classification. An interesting exercise may be to specify existing individuals (as well as institutions) and discuss whether they should be classified as CS or not, and why (such as I've done on a preliminary basis here with ICANN as an institution). This could elucidate the intuitive criteria people are using to classify "CS" and by bringing these criteria to explicit attention one may then focus on those criteria to discuss them on the merits. But I would recommend starting from tangible examples to see what people are thinking about them and why, because this will lead most quickly to the particular lines of contention. One thing is clear to me in all of the MuSHiness: there is no way to talk about multistakeholder organizational structures in a useful and productive manner without clearly and sharply defining the classification of the stakeholder groups, and clarifying the criteria of stakeholder representation by individuals. Otherwise one runs the continual risk of "non-CS" players gaming the definition of CS and diluting whatever representation "real CS" does have in the IGF MAG. Better get on with it. I'm afraid I will have to pop back out to Tumbolia now, sorry I can't stick around for the exciting discussions in real time, but I'll be curious to track them on a delayed basis. Dan (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumbolia (**) http://www.icann.org/general/articles.htm -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun Mar 9 04:31:49 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:31:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] What is CS In-Reply-To: References: <5fmg5b$84l94h@mail.servidor.unam.mx> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47D3A075.1090600@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > One thing is clear to me in all of the MuSHiness: there is no way to talk > about multistakeholder organizational structures in a useful and productive > manner without clearly and sharply defining the classification of the > stakeholder groups, and clarifying the criteria of stakeholder > representation by individuals.... I have always considered the word "stakeholder" to be inconsistent with the idea of democracy, whether direct or representative. For more see: Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road For Internet Governance - at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --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 garth.graham at telus.net Sun Mar 9 12:14:24 2008 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 09:14:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... In-Reply-To: <001c01c8813d$2e1bc860$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <001c01c8813d$2e1bc860$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <8FA7C9C5-FC2A-4B4B-B611-DFBC418C00AB@telus.net> My thanks for your disagreement, Michael, because, of course, I agree with it. We're both headed toward the same definition of e- governance as, I think, the second sentence of the definition reveals. I suspect my close association with national strategies for the uses of ICTs for development in several counties made me overly sensitive to a government view in that first attempt at a working definition. After all, the notion that we all now face distributed collaborative governance is quite shocking to some. But you are right. We can't get into the conversation unless the risk of making the offensive point about shared power is taken. With your observation in hand, I can see edits to improve the first sentence so that point begins to clarify, as follows: "E-governance is the uses of ICTs TO MODIFY the exercise of power AS IT IS PERCEIVED by various levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and marginalized, can PARTICIPATE IN policy, improve their livelihoods and gain a SHARED voice in the public decision making process. E-governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of interaction." GG On 8-Mar-08, at 8:54 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Let me make a few other comments interspersed within an edited > version of > your note... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] > Sent: March 3, 2008 9:41 AM > To: governance > Cc: Michael Gurstein; Ronda Hauben > Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... > > ...... "E-governance is the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power > by various > levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and > marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and > gain a greater voice in the public decision making process. E- > governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of > open and collaborative communities of interaction." > > I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS GARTH AS E-GOVERNANCE FOR ME IS NOT ABOUT > GOVERNMENTS SHARING WITH CITIZENS THE OPPORTUNITY TO > "INFLUENCE" (I.E. TOP > DOWN) BUT RATHER CITIZENS DIRECTLY SHARING (VIA ICTS) IN THE > PROCESS OF > GOVERNANCE WITH EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HOWEVER THAT MIGHT BE > ORGANIZED > AND WHATEVER THE RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE OF THIS WITH EXISTING > REPRESENTATIVE > GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 9 13:48:10 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 10:48:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... In-Reply-To: <8FA7C9C5-FC2A-4B4B-B611-DFBC418C00AB@telus.net> Message-ID: <005b01c8820e$080fb7e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Garth, Interesting... 'm not sure why the "perception of governments" should be a crucial element of the definition which I would rephrase as: "E-governance is the uses of ICTs TO MODIFY the exercise of power so that all people, particularly the poor and marginalized, can PARTICIPATE IN policy, improve their livelihoods and gain a SHARED voice in the public decision making process. E-governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of interaction." I was just at a meeting where the Government of Ontario (Canada) is in the process of kicking off a major process to develop a "Provincial Broadband Strategy"... The issue of whether the process would be "consultative" or "participatory" took up a fair amount of the discussion time. It was clear that the position of all of those not being governmental representatives was towards "participatory" while the government folks didn't seem to have ever considered anything other than a (top-down) "consultative" process... It will be interesting to see how they respond to this initial reaction to their current strategy development plan. (And there may be some lessons from these processes and attempts at conceptual clarification/revision that would be of some value for CS to pursue in the IGF and ICANN contexts as well... MG -----Original Message----- From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] Sent: March 9, 2008 9:14 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... My thanks for your disagreement, Michael, because, of course, I agree with it. We're both headed toward the same definition of e- governance as, I think, the second sentence of the definition reveals. I suspect my close association with national strategies for the uses of ICTs for development in several counties made me overly sensitive to a government view in that first attempt at a working definition. After all, the notion that we all now face distributed collaborative governance is quite shocking to some. But you are right. We can't get into the conversation unless the risk of making the offensive point about shared power is taken. With your observation in hand, I can see edits to improve the first sentence so that point begins to clarify, as follows: "E-governance is the uses of ICTs TO MODIFY the exercise of power AS IT IS PERCEIVED by various levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and marginalized, can PARTICIPATE IN policy, improve their livelihoods and gain a SHARED voice in the public decision making process. E-governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of interaction." GG On 8-Mar-08, at 8:54 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Let me make a few other comments interspersed within an edited > version of > your note... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] > Sent: March 3, 2008 9:41 AM > To: governance > Cc: Michael Gurstein; Ronda Hauben > Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... > > ...... "E-governance is the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power > by various > levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and > marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and > gain a greater voice in the public decision making process. E- > governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of > open and collaborative communities of interaction." > > I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS GARTH AS E-GOVERNANCE FOR ME IS NOT ABOUT > GOVERNMENTS SHARING WITH CITIZENS THE OPPORTUNITY TO > "INFLUENCE" (I.E. TOP > DOWN) BUT RATHER CITIZENS DIRECTLY SHARING (VIA ICTS) IN THE > PROCESS OF > GOVERNANCE WITH EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HOWEVER THAT MIGHT BE > ORGANIZED > AND WHATEVER THE RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE OF THIS WITH EXISTING > REPRESENTATIVE > GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Mar 9 15:06:14 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:06:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] web: Zittrrain on the future of the internet Message-ID: http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/tony_curzon_price/from_zittrain_to_aristotle_in_600_words ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Sun Mar 9 15:54:02 2008 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:54:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... In-Reply-To: <005b01c8820e$080fb7e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <005b01c8820e$080fb7e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: While I too eagerly await the withering away of the state, the problem is how to discuss a phase change without being on the other side of it. In fact, governments do still believe that governance is the province of governments. "They" haven't yet quite "got it" that, in self-organizing systems, the rules governing relationship are internal to each element of the system. They are not externally imposed, except in the sense that the system overall learns its way forward according to its circumstances. The first sentence of my original draft of an e-governance definition was actually borrowed from a Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) web site that defines "governance" in the context of development policy as follows: “CIDA considers democratic governance essential for poverty reduction and long-term sustainable development. The Agency’s work in this area aims to make states more effective in tackling poverty by enhancing the degree to which all people, particularly the poor and the marginalized, can influence policy and improve their livelihoods." CIDA apparently does not have a working definition of e-governance, in spite of support for e-governance capacity building projects. In a way, and as you will no doubt recall, this mirrors the total absence of a definition of the "Information Society" in the World Summit on the "Information Society." I think I'd like to leave that "perception of governments" in the definition, at least for a little while longer. Pandering to that misperception just might create a political climate in which the significance of the phase change and its impact on our perceptions of how society is structured can actually be discussed. GG On 9-Mar-08, at 10:48 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm not sure why the "perception of governments" should be a > crucial element > of the definition which I would rephrase as: > > "E-governance is the uses of ICTs TO MODIFY the exercise of power > so that > all people, particularly the poor and marginalized, can > PARTICIPATE IN policy, > improve their livelihoods and gain a SHARED voice in the public > decision making process. E-governance changes behavior in relation > to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of > interaction." > > I was just at a meeting where the Government of Ontario (Canada) is > in the > process of kicking off a major process to develop a "Provincial > Broadband > Strategy"... The issue of whether the process would be > "consultative" or > "participatory" took up a fair amount of the discussion time. It > was clear > that the position of all of those not being governmental > representatives was > towards "participatory" while the government folks didn't seem to > have ever > considered anything other than a (top-down) "consultative" process... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] > Sent: March 9, 2008 9:14 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... > > > My thanks for your disagreement, Michael, because, of course, I agree > with it. We're both headed toward the same definition of e- > governance as, I think, the second sentence of the definition > reveals. I suspect my close association with national strategies for > the uses of ICTs for development in several counties made me overly > sensitive to a government view in that first attempt at a working > definition. After all, the notion that we all now face distributed > collaborative governance is quite shocking to some. But you are > right. We can't get into the conversation unless the risk of making > the offensive point about shared power is taken. With your > observation in hand, I can see edits to improve the first sentence so > that point begins to clarify, as follows: > > "E-governance is the uses of ICTs TO MODIFY the exercise of power AS > IT IS PERCEIVED by various levels of government so that all people, > particularly the poor and marginalized, can PARTICIPATE IN policy, > improve their livelihoods and gain a SHARED voice in the public > decision making process. E-governance changes behavior in relation > to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of > interaction." > > GG > > On 8-Mar-08, at 8:54 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Let me make a few other comments interspersed within an edited >> version of your note... >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] >> Sent: March 3, 2008 9:41 AM >> To: governance >> Cc: Michael Gurstein; Ronda Hauben >> Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... >> >> ...... "E-governance is the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power >> by various levels of government so that all people, particularly >> the poor and >> marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and >> gain a greater voice in the public decision making process. E- >> governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of >> open and collaborative communities of interaction." >> >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS GARTH AS E-GOVERNANCE FOR ME IS NOT ABOUT >> GOVERNMENTS SHARING WITH CITIZENS THE OPPORTUNITY TO >> "INFLUENCE" (I.E. TOP DOWN) BUT RATHER CITIZENS DIRECTLY SHARING >> (VIA ICTS) IN THE PROCESS OF GOVERNANCE WITH EXISTING >> GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HOWEVER THAT MIGHT BE ORGANIZED AND WHATEVER >> THE RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE OF THIS WITH EXISTING >> REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES. >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Sun Mar 9 23:27:36 2008 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:27:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] What is CS In-Reply-To: <47D3A075.1090600@cavebear.com> References: <5fmg5b$84l94h@mail.servidor.unam.mx> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC578@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47D3A075.1090600@cavebear.com> Message-ID: At 12:31 AM -0800 3/9/08, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: > >> One thing is clear to me in all of the MuSHiness: there is no way to talk >> about multistakeholder organizational structures in a useful and productive >> manner without clearly and sharply defining the classification of the >> stakeholder groups, and clarifying the criteria of stakeholder >> representation by individuals.... > >I have always considered the word "stakeholder" to be inconsistent with >the idea of democracy, whether direct or representative. > >For more see: > Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road For Internet Governance - at >http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf Just skimmed it briefly, an interesting idea, though it seems heavy on semantics to me (the "fix" is to consider "stakeholders" on an opt-out rather than opt-in basis -- if in doubt, one has a stake until proven otherwise -- and to include secondary stakeholders by default, including everyone for whom multiplier effects and indirect causality affects them at some point down the road, which is basically how you get to including everyone). I certainly agree with you that all human beings are "stakeholders" in the Internet, and thus in Internet Governance, because everyone will be affected by the Internet at some point, even if only indirectly. The question is not whether but how to represent these interests. Though, I would go further and maintain that the Commonwealth (the tide that lifts all ships) has interests above and beyond any possible collection of individual interests. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Mar 10 09:11:44 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:11:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... In-Reply-To: <005b01c8820e$080fb7e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <005b01c8820e$080fb7e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <47D53390.3050703@rits.org.br> E-governance is... a broad concept which goes beyond just governance through TICs of government activities. This is of concern to any organization. The canon you are trying to establish refers to "government e-governance", or "e-governance in government", or maybe "e-governance of public services", or... frt rgds --c.a. Michael Gurstein wrote: > Garth, > > Interesting... > > 'm not sure why the "perception of governments" should be a crucial element > of the definition which I would rephrase as: > > "E-governance is the uses of ICTs TO MODIFY the exercise of power so that > all people, > particularly the poor and marginalized, can PARTICIPATE IN policy, > improve their livelihoods and gain a SHARED voice in the public > decision making process. E-governance changes behavior in relation > to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of > interaction." > > I was just at a meeting where the Government of Ontario (Canada) is in the > process of kicking off a major process to develop a "Provincial Broadband > Strategy"... The issue of whether the process would be "consultative" or > "participatory" took up a fair amount of the discussion time. It was clear > that the position of all of those not being governmental representatives was > towards "participatory" while the government folks didn't seem to have ever > considered anything other than a (top-down) "consultative" process... > > It will be interesting to see how they respond to this initial reaction to > their current strategy development plan. (And there may be some lessons from > these processes and attempts at conceptual clarification/revision that would > be of some value for CS to pursue in the IGF and ICANN contexts as well... > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] > Sent: March 9, 2008 9:14 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... > > > My thanks for your disagreement, Michael, because, of course, I agree > with it. We're both headed toward the same definition of e- > governance as, I think, the second sentence of the definition > reveals. I suspect my close association with national strategies for > the uses of ICTs for development in several counties made me overly > sensitive to a government view in that first attempt at a working > definition. After all, the notion that we all now face distributed > collaborative governance is quite shocking to some. But you are > right. We can't get into the conversation unless the risk of making > the offensive point about shared power is taken. With your > observation in hand, I can see edits to improve the first sentence so > that point begins to clarify, as follows: > > "E-governance is the uses of ICTs TO MODIFY the exercise of power AS > IT IS PERCEIVED by various levels of government so that all people, > particularly the poor and marginalized, can PARTICIPATE IN policy, > improve their livelihoods and gain a SHARED voice in the public > decision making process. E-governance changes behavior in relation > to power in the direction of open and collaborative communities of > interaction." > > GG > > On 8-Mar-08, at 8:54 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Let me make a few other comments interspersed within an edited >> version of >> your note... >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] >> Sent: March 3, 2008 9:41 AM >> To: governance >> Cc: Michael Gurstein; Ronda Hauben >> Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... >> >> ...... "E-governance is the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power >> by various >> levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and >> marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and >> gain a greater voice in the public decision making process. E- >> governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of >> open and collaborative communities of interaction." >> >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS GARTH AS E-GOVERNANCE FOR ME IS NOT ABOUT >> GOVERNMENTS SHARING WITH CITIZENS THE OPPORTUNITY TO >> "INFLUENCE" (I.E. TOP >> DOWN) BUT RATHER CITIZENS DIRECTLY SHARING (VIA ICTS) IN THE >> PROCESS OF >> GOVERNANCE WITH EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HOWEVER THAT MIGHT BE >> ORGANIZED >> AND WHATEVER THE RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE OF THIS WITH EXISTING >> REPRESENTATIVE >> GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 10 10:37:05 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Stephanie's - User input to Internet architecture work Message-ID: Stephanie's - User input to Internet architecture work [ http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00160.html ] >... So, next step is, -snip- Such a document could list user requirements such as: * no provider lock-in. If there is a market of providers, then user's choice is a necessity to avoid oligopolies. Technical solutions that limit the ability of the user to switch providers are bad. Counter-example, an architecture where all IP addresses would be PA (Provider-Aggregeatable) would create a serious lock-in (although not an 100 % lock-in since renumbering your machines is still possible, while painful). * freedom to create and deploy new applications, even applications which were not planned at the beginning. Counter-example: I've recently seen a proposal for a "future Internet" based on applications, with an architecture centered around a small set if usages (and, since "the code is the law", such an architecture would probably prevent innovation). * freedom to be called as well as calling. There are other uses of the Internet than browsing the Web. Some of these uses require the ability of the ordinary user to be the responder of a communication, not only the initiator. This should be possible on personal machines, without renting a dedicated box. Counter-example: NAT seriously threatens that. There is a high risk that, a few years from now, the typical individual user connection, and may be the SOHO as well, will be with private addresses only. - adding - * (4) to safeguard the open marketplace of ideas on the Internet by adopting and enforcing baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet. [ibid #4: “Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008” (HR 5353) Reps. Ed Markey and Chip Pickering] * Applying SEC Trade rules & penalties to DNS Exchanges and Trading Systems. (Domain-Trading; normative and alternate methoods, i.e.: Insider Trading Rules, etc...) * Universal Pricing for Domain Purchases, Renewals, and Trades. (A constant-value unit (k) / fixed exchange-price-point) For example: A European Register charges in Euros, US registers charges Dollars for dns services. the 'rate' of the cost for the Domain would be constant, regardless of the present value of the Euro or the Dollar. As it now Domain cost are subject to currency valuations. i.e.: the Euro is now stronger than the Dollar, so Europeans buy domains and services from US companies at a bargain/discount. Wherein Americans pay normative cost for domestic dns services and a premium for European dns services. User's choices are now encumbered by their base currency, limiting their selection to local and exchange rates, respective to the cost. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Mar 10 11:38:17 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:38:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Stephanie's - User input to Internet architecture work In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080310153817.GA19952@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:37:05AM -0700, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote a message of 71 lines which said: > Stephanie's Stéphane. Do not trust your spell checker. There is no "i". > * (4) to safeguard the open marketplace of ideas on the Internet by > adopting and enforcing baseline protections to guard against > unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, > content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or > destination on the Internet. It has absolutely nothing to do with the technical architecture of the Internet. What could the IETF do with such requirment? How could it be translated into technical standards? > * Applying SEC Trade rules & penalties to DNS Exchanges and > Trading Systems. Same thing. > * Universal Pricing for Domain Purchases, Renewals, and Trades. Same thing. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 10 12:51:25 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Stephanie's - User input to Internet In-Reply-To: 20080310153817.GA19952@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org Message-ID: Stéphane, Your absolutlty right about my suggestions not applying to the IETF per se its intrest in technical protocal. However when you consider the IEFT overall mission statement [ http://www.ietf.org/overview.html ]; ... The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. The IETF Mission Statement is documented in RFC 3935. ... Technical Work aside: (*4) "to safeguard the open marketplace of ideas on the Internet by adopting and enforcing baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism" Then global 'economic forces' should be considered. The reason we don't see 'network operators' in parts of Asia, parts of Africa, in parts of S. America, is simply due to economic realities. If the Providers of a an area can't afford to do buisness, then basicaly we have a hole in the network. One World global communications fail. We agree on the technical aspects/merits of your three items, I feel the economic aspects go hand-in-hand with the these, so that we can "safeguard the open marketplace of ideas". So I suggested that we move to remove the vices of economic favoritism (a discriminatory favoritism) by adapting some safeguards. The "open marketplace of ideas" is very close to "freedom-of-speach", however two differnet things. Along this line, if there is a hole in the Network due to economic conditions, then those who reside inside the area are squelched out of the marketplace. Silenced (silence=death, the community cannot grow) I don't see a reason for the IEFT not to participate in this arena. I do agree with you that it would be difficult to 'write' these types of standards & principles into the IEFT format. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Mar 10 13:33:53 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:33:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Message-ID: Meryem, Bertrand, Pardon mois if I jump in to agree with Bertrand re fractalization, but translate it to the international law term of extraterritoriality: In the good old days, the rest of the world worried about the US applying its law beyond its borders (ok,still is the good old days, and if Meryem you want examples just pick an area of law and we can come up with a list of cases/examples, or just go political for a moment and cite Barack's stance a la Pakistan and al Qaeda). More recently some worried and others applauded as the EU privacy directive became de facto law globally; ICANN and IGF making and/or overseeing/discussing supranational activities can be seen as an extrateritorial legal issue as well. The probably empiricially measurable increased frequency of cases of extraterritorial legal disputes could reasonably be attributed to the Internet, and fractalization can be seen as one element and one way of describing these self-similar debates. The complexity calls for one more principle favored by the EU, of subsidiarity, meaning decisions should be made as locally as possible, since as we see at the global level things get awfully complicated...even if fractalization theory would suggest it is no worse than at other levels of analyis and governance. As this thread suggests, the Internet has a levelling effect as now all nations can seek (and may feel they have cause to) apply laws extraterritorially. ICANN's worries about government encroachment make sense in this context. Except when a government is intervening in a policy direction I personally agree with ;). Lee Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 03/07/08 9:12 AM >>> Dear Meryem, Interesting to turn this list into a franco-french exchange for once ...:-) Just a few remarks and I stop. 1) you wrote : > Interestingly enough, such mechanism cannot escalate up to the root > itself. I fail to see why? The possibility I mentioned is that ICANN (a US legal entity) be ordered by a US court to use contractual provisions (if they allow) with a foreign registry to suspend a domain name? This was precisely my point : what you describe is not an intervention on the root itself (ie : an IANA oversight function), but a potential action through ICANN and its contractual agreements, which is a different matter. What I meant is that this escalation brings larger and larger impact with each level : site owners can be asked to suppress very small items (maybe down to a sentence), registrars and registries can only act at the level of the domain name (ie the whole site). But nothing can be actually done at the top root level - unless I completely misunderstand the whole system, which is possible - except disabling the whole TLD, a disproportionate "nuclear" action if any. Although, upon further thinking, in the perspective of future new TLDs of smaller size and more specific purpose than .com, that would consistently refuse to impose upon their registrants the provisions of the contractual agreement, such a drastic measure could potentially be envisaged as part of a structured and clear enforcement mechanism. I do not say it should. 2) You are right : appeal and redress are only ex-post actions. Ex ante principles and rules of enforcement must be clear to "resolve conflicts of jurisdiction in Internet content-related cases". This is why I found useful to discuss concrete cases like this one. 3) A last word on "fractal sovereignty". The way it was worded makes it look like a solution. I was rather refering to a factual description of a situation. I should have written "we are witnessing a fractalization of sovereignty". Thanks for forcing me to be more precise. Best Bertrand On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Le 7 mars 08 à 12:08, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > > I fully agree this case is a "notice and take down" procedure. My > > questions were related to the hypothesis of such an order being > > given by a court in the US (as per Milton's comment) towards a > > registrar that would be elsewhere. > There are precedent for this: the French/US Yahoo case. The precedent is > in the court order issued in one country (France), to be executed > in another country (USA). It resulted in an 6 years litigation in > French and US courts. In fine, there is still no clear jurisprudence > on enforcement in the US of foreign court orders. I don't know of any > important precedent for the converse situation (US court order to be > enforced in a foreign country). > > [...] > > What you actually describe is a chain of successive enforcement > > modes : notice and take down on specific contents towards the site > > operator, notice and take down for a whole site through the ISP, > > suspension of the domain via the registrar, and then the registry. > > This escalation, may be compared to the nuclear deterrence > > "graduated response" model (and you know this expression has > > flourished in France in relation to the measures proposed in the > > case of music downloads). > The "graduated response" foreseen in France is a completely different > concept. > > Interestingly enough, such mechanism cannot escalate up to the root > > itself. > I fail to see why? The possibility I mentioned is that ICANN (a US legal > entity) be ordered by a US court to use contractual provisions > (if they allow) with a foreign registry to suspend a domain name? > > In cases of competing or overlapping jurisdictions, the key > > question you want to see addressed, if I understand well, is the > > transparency and accountability (including capacity for redress and > > appeal) that should exist at these different levels. It is indeed > > the right question. > What I would really want to be addressed, and what is the right (and main) > question in my opinion, is the resolution of the conflicts of > jurisdiction in Internet content-related cases. There indeed exist > some international law provisions dealing with the conflict of > jurisdiction issues, but to my knowledge it is mainly limited to > civil and commercial matters. Better than transparency and > accountability and capacity for redress and appeal (which are a > posteriori procedures, after one has already faced a court decision > against him/her) would be true legal security for website owners, > i.e. for responsibles of published content. > > In that context, the notion of "fractal sovereignty" I was alluding > > to would not be a breach of the rule of law. Quite on the contrary, > > an attempt to maintain (or establish) it in cases where the web is > > raising new problems that are hard to solve with pure territorial > > sovereignty and the non-involvement of key technical or commercial > > actors. > Perhaps we're actually willing to reach the same goal, but I don't see > here any need for new concepts like "fractal sovereignty", which > fuziness could only be used (whether we like it or not) to circumvent > well established and secure principles and rights. I would feel far > more comfortable with a discussion on new international law > agreements based on the principle of the country of origin of the > content owner -- But there's for sure, a very long way to this, and > the result is by no mean guaranteed. > Best, > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ 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 From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Mar 10 16:43:43 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:43:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sponsorship for NGOs and CS entities to the CSTD 11th Session - Application process OPEN Message-ID: <200803102042.m2AKgepE004928@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, As previously announced on that list, this is the most recent information regarding the opportunities of fellowships for civil society participants in the upcoming 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, 26-30 May 2008 (in the UNCTAD jargon, sponsored CS participants are called procedure of invited meeting participants). The sponsorship procedure will allow around 12 civil society participants to be funded for their participation in the CSTD. This process is reserved for NGO and civil society representatives from developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The support for invited participants in the CTSD-11 will include an invitation letter to attend the 11th session of the CSTD, an economy class ticket and the normal UN Duty station allowance for Geneva for the duration of the CSTD session. In this regard, note that the daily allowance in Geneva as practiced within UNCATD is quite high so that civil society participants requesting this fellowship could easily opt for a reasonable price hotel / accommodation in Geneva and arrive in Geneva earlier for the beginning of the cluster of WSIS related meetings (Action Line Facilitation process and IGF Open consultation, see updated calendar at http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm), and therefore maximizing the use of he fellowship beyond the time of the CSTD session alone. Representatives of NGOs in Consultative Status with ECOSOC and of civil society entities accredited to WSIS are eligible for requesting a fellowship. Other criteria and conditions are precisely spelled out in the attached announcement. Deadline: The deadline for submission of the fellowship request is Tuesday 1 April 2008. The nomination form should be sent back at the following e-mail address: cstd-csparticipation at unctad.org NOTE THAT REQUESTS FOR SPONSORSHIP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES - and therefore their final repartition - WILL BE PROCESSED BY THE CTSD SECRETARIAT HOSTED BY UNCTAD and not by me or my organisation (CONGO). Please circulate this information to your networks. Feel free to get back to us for any question or request for additional information: we would be happy to liaise with the CTSD Secretariat. I'll send in a few minutes additional information on the drafting process of the WSIS Report 2008, for which CS contributions and comments are highly welcome by the CSTD Secretariat. I'll attach the current outline of the report. Links: - Commission on Science and Technology for Development: http://www.unctad.org/cstd - CONGO calendar of WSIS related meetings: www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm All the best, 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: Meeting participants, announcement.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 41472 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Nomination form final.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 48128 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Mar 10 17:18:43 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:18:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Outline of the WSIS Follow-up Report 2008 - CS inputs welcome Message-ID: <200803102117.m2ALHef8022476@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the outline of the WSIS Follow-up Report 2008, to be prepared by the CSTD Secretariat as the second background document for the 2008 CSTD session. The publication of this report was mentioned during the 26 February briefing with the CSTD Secretariat. In addition to the UN Secretary General's report, which will collect information and reports coming from the International Organisations serving as Action Line facilitators, the WSIS Follow-up Report will consist in a more analytical description of developments and trends. Its drafting will be done by the CTSD Secretariat with the support of consultants. The CSTD Secretariat encourages NGOs and civil society entities to provide inputs and contributions which will be shared with the drafting team of the Report: these contributions should be sent to Charles Geiger by e-mail; those who would not have Mr. Geiger's contacts can contact me off line. The civil society contributions can either consist in comments on the attached outline, or in written substantive documentation / paper produced by your organisation on issues to be addressed in the report. There is no specific deadline for these submissions, but note that the work on this report is currently on going, therefore the sooner the better! Of course, these contributions will be used by the drafting team, keeping in mind time and space constraints (the total report will be 50 pages). It is planned that this analytical document should be published every year by the CSTD Secretariat, as background for the CSTD. Feel free to get back to me for any further information in this regard. Note finally that information regarding the limited number of fellowships for the CSTD session will be made available in the course of next week. Best regards, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outline of WSIS Follow-up Report 2008.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34816 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO - Philippe Dam" Subject: RE: [governance] Briefing with secretariat of the CSTD - today, 2 to 3 pm, Room XXVII Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:04:59 +0100 Size: 45671 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 05:53:18 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:53:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c8835e$5264a070$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Thanks Sylvia, for this very useful and insightful observation. I've made the changes accordingly. Best, MG -----Original Message----- From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:sylvia.caras at gmail.com] Sent: March 5, 2008 10:25 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial Thanks for organizing this material. One suggestion: On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > 1.physical disability Even though the phrase 'physical disability' is in common use, it is quite exclusive and perhaps even discriminatory. The phrase 'physical disability' omits all the accommodations that are useful to people with emotional, cognitive and intellectual disabilities. I'd suggest either using no modifier at all, or 'personal disability', 'individual disability' ... Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 11 05:53:18 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:53:18 -0700 Subject: [Public_Voice] RE: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial In-Reply-To: <20080307064801.AE781C816F@mailman.epic.org> Message-ID: <001601c8835e$6d240220$6600a8c0@michael78xnoln> Thanks very much Parminder for your very thoughtful and useful contribution here... I've taken much of what you've written and adapted it to be included in the Introduction to Chapter 1 (as per the Wiki). MG -----Original Message----- From: coalition-admin at mailman.thepublicvoice.org [mailto:coalition-admin at mailman.thepublicvoice.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: March 6, 2008 10:47 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein'; plenary at wsis-cs.org; coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org Subject: [Public_Voice] RE: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial Michael Thanks for taking up this initiative. I agree to go with the statement as it stands, and I think it is very comprehensive. However I am offering some comments which you may use if and as found appropriate. I am replying publicly because I thought some the comments offered here may draw some responses here which themselves may be of some use to you. I think the statement is very good, and covers most areas of 'specific' exclusions in the IS (or info economy, IE) very well. I would though like to have some overall text prefacing what you have put down, which points to the 'systemic exclusions' arising from the way dominant version of IS or IE is conceived and practiced at present. Oftentimes, speaking only of 'marginal' exclusions, which can be corrected by patchwork here and there, serves to draw attention away from the issue of systemic exclusions which are more fundamental, and severely limit any real possibility of participation and inclusion. I therefore think that the statement should engage at both these levels. Classically, every (political) economy recognizes the distinction between those aspects that are of a 'public infrastructural' nature and those that need to be an exclusive preserve of the markets. Public infrastructural aspects requires large scale public investments in areas which support a huge amount of supra-structural economic activity, and these infrastructural areas may by themselves, for various structural reasons, be not attractive enough to private investment. Even if private investment does go into these critical infrastructures it may tend to skew the opportunity structures in a manner inimical to both the overall economy, and the concerns of equity within it. The emerging IS or IE has new key infrastructural elements at many levels whose 'public nature' needs to be recognized, and the financing and regulation of these elements has to proceed from this recognition. Beyond this distinction, every (political) economy or society also recognizes areas where direct public investments are needed not only as per economic logic stated above, but as a matter of social policy, to account for various basic needs and rights of the people, and to address various social inclusions. Policy makers need to see the Internet not only as a new market infrastructure, but also as a critical social infrastructure, bringing in the issues of rights and entitlements that are important aspects of today's welfare state. At present Information economy (or society) is often recognized as one exclusively market-mediated monolith where public sector is mostly only given a regulatory role. The traditional socio-economic distinctions of areas of an economy where markets dominate -personal automobiles for instance, and areas where public sector dominates - basic essential infrastructure, and specific domains like education and health, are obliterated. This is done in the fictional belief that somehow ICTs have completely perfected the markets, and that public sector interventions were in any case only needed for correcting market imperfections. This is a dangerous political economy assumption, which is not proven, and would certainly lead to massive exclusions and discriminations in the emerging information society (economy). When speaking about guiding principles of the future Information economy, which I understand the OECD ministerial seeks to do, it is important to recognize the elements of the IS - and of its paradigmatic infrastructure, the Internet - that are essentially of the nature of public infrastructure and public services. Discriminations and exclusions are systemically and structurally related to this issue of the adequate policy distinction between the private or market-mediated, on one hand, and the 'public', on the other, in the IS, while it is still important to deal specifically with each kind of exclusion that your statement elaborates on so well. In this context it may also be useful to refer the inputs of the European Council to the IGF which emphasizes the 'public service value' of the Internet, and links the issue of access to the Internet with democratic citizenship. To quote. "Consequently, it is proposed that everyone should be entitled to expect the delivery of a minimum level of Internet services (for example effective and affordable access, a suitable environment for businesses to operate, etc.) irrespective of both the architecture of the World Wide Web (infrastructure, accessibility, interconnectivity) and the arrangements concerning its construction and development, with regard to the rules or principles that apply - or ought to apply - to the Internet's use (such as freedom of speech and of association, right to private life and correspondence, consumer protection, security, crime-prevention)." (http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/CoE%20submission%20to%20the% 20IGF.pdf ) Parminder _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:40 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial Hello colleagues: I've agreed to pull together a section on "Discrimination in the Information Economy" for the CS statement to the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June. I've done up several very general statements as placeholders but I know that there are individuals on this list with specific expertise in these areas and I would very much appreciate if they could redo what I've done and as well add appropriate referencing to previous CS documents, standards, appropriate websites etc. If people could send their comments to me individually indicating which numbered section they are referring to, I'll compile them and recirculate them. I've agreed to do a final by Monday at the latest so speed is of the essence. (This is a bit of a last minute job so I'm not sure how much debate on wording will actually be possible so please if comments could be made as "generic" from a CS perspective as possible that would be great. Among the barriers to equitable participation are: 1.physical disability which interferes with the opportunity to make use of the input/output devices through which the digital platform is access. Such disabilities might include visual disabilities (the inability to read or interpret messages on a screen) as for example arising from blindness, colour blindness or other forms of visual impairment. There are a variety of well recognized standards for the design of web interfaces which enable utilization of these sites by those with visual disabilities but these standards are for the most part voluntary and frequently are ignored or overlooked. The enforcement of these standards particularly in government sites or site which are supportive of public participation, provide public services, or are overall in the realm of "public activities" should become mandatory and means for their enforcement should be developed. 2.levels of literacy may be required by certain digitally enabled activities which act as discriminants for those with lower levels of education, cognitive abilities or limited facility with the language being used on the site. Similarly as with visual disabilities standards exist for determining the level of literacy required for utilization of specific sites and these should be formally adopted and means developed for their enforcement particularly in those sites necessary for social, political and economic functioning in the Information Society 3.differential access to the use of the Internet because of barriers of cost of access (Internet access costs or costs of the input/output devices themselves (personal computers for example). Many of those currently not using the Internet (as understood by means of the concept of the "Digital Divide") are not doing so because of the cost of this service. Ensuring that publicly accessible services at no or nominal cost is a minimum basis for ensuring equitable participation in the Information Society. 4.related to the financial barrier of access may be the barriers of physical disability in limiting access to places where no or minimal cost Internet access may be available. Many of those with physical disabilities also have very low incomes so the opportunity to use the Internet (or other ICTs) may only come through public Internet access points (PIAPs). If these PIAPs are themselves not accessible because of physical barriers (as for example not being wheel chair accessible), then the opportunity to participate is doubly restricted. 5.further, many of those also who do not make use of the Internet may not be doing so because of a lack of knowledge or personal confidence with respect to the means for making such use. This would be particularly the case for the elderly and those with lower levels of education. The barrier of confidence or skill with respect to Internet use may be overcome through the availability of training or support services in the context of the PIAPs and thus publicly supported means for providing this training (it is frequently done through support of volunteers or student interns) is a further means for ensuring that discriminatory barriers do not exist for Internet participation. 6. Equitable gender access to ICT has been linked to an increase in overall social equality for women; however, within numerous global contexts-including those of Developed Countries-gender disparities in access to ICT persist, and women predominate the lower-wage sectors of the information economy. Women also are under-represented in ICT decision-making capacities. Gender is one of many factors that determine the impact of ICT on women's lives. Ethnicity, religion, age, physical ability, and socio-economic status also figure into the degrees of inclusion and exclusion that differentiate regions and communities. Key to overcoming the barriers, shortcomings and misconceptions that exacerbate gender inequalities in ICT are the comprehensive education of all persons regardless of gender, the promotion of equal access for women to scientific and technological arenas, the provision of opportunities for lifelong learning in ICT, and the augmentation of women's roles in ICT decision-making. Governments should enable equal access and opportunity for all via policies and programs as well as collaborate more broadly with the private sector and civil society to change social attitudes, cultural ideologies, and stereotypes that limit women's participation in the digital economy. 7. in many circumstances there are additional difficulties (and costs) in obtaining access to the means for participation in the digital economy by those living in remote, rural, or low-income areas. The cost of the provision of enhanced (broadband for example) infrastructures in such areas may lead to gaps in access in these areas if the service provision is only left to market considerations. In order to ensure that there is no discrimination or additional barriers to participation on the part of rural and remote residents it may be necessary for public authorities to intervene to find means to balance costs as between locales. 8. Individuals' relationship with access providers or their business partners may also be a source for discrimination against particular users. Vertical integration of access provision with other products, content, and services may lead access providers to engage in tying behaviors, such as blocking or degrading competitors' services. Competition and communications authorities should act to prevent such behavior. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 07:49:46 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:19:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] ARIN / CAIDA IPv6 Survey Message-ID: <002c01c8836e$02706260$07512720$@net> fyi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Member Services Date: Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07 PM Subject: ARIN & CAIDA IPv6 Survey To: nanog at merit.edu The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the ARIN Region. For a complete list of countries go to: http://www.arin.net/community/ARINcountries.html We encourage all organizations in the ARIN region to participate in the survey so we can establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans of IPv6 deployment. The survey will open on 10 March and remain available until noon ET on 24 March. The results of the survey will be presented and discussed at the ARIN XXI Public Policy and Members Meeting to be held in Denver 6-9 April 2008, and the survey data will support ongoing research. The survey is composed of 20 questions that can be answered in a few minutes. When you complete the survey you will be entered in a drawing for prizes. You must provide your contact information to win. This is a secure survey and all data will be presented in summary form only, and kept confidential between ARIN and CAIDA. Please take a few moments to complete the survey located at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=2x5j2OlJl0cq44iYfQadrw_3d_3d Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Mar 11 07:56:54 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:56:54 -0300 Subject: [governance] ARIN / CAIDA IPv6 Survey In-Reply-To: <002c01c8836e$02706260$07512720$@net> References: <002c01c8836e$02706260$07512720$@net> Message-ID: <47D67386.5010903@rits.org.br> This is the kind of initiative I was looking for when asking for activities monitoring the progress of IPv6 deployment. I guess other RIRs could do (if not already doing) the same. --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > fyi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Member Services > Date: Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07 PM > Subject: ARIN & CAIDA IPv6 Survey > To: nanog at merit.edu > > > > The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with > the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is > conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use > of IPv6 throughout the ARIN Region. For a complete list of countries go > to: http://www.arin.net/community/ARINcountries.html > > We encourage all organizations in the ARIN region to participate in the > survey so we can establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 > penetration and future plans of IPv6 deployment. The survey will open > on 10 March and remain available until noon ET on 24 March. The results > of the survey will be presented and discussed at the ARIN XXI Public > Policy and Members Meeting to be held in Denver 6-9 April 2008, and the > survey data will support ongoing research. > > The survey is composed of 20 questions that can be answered in a few > minutes. When you complete the survey you will be entered in a drawing > for prizes. You must provide your contact information to win. This is a > secure survey and all data will be presented in summary form only, and > kept confidential between ARIN and CAIDA. > > Please take a few moments to complete the survey located at: > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=2x5j2OlJl0cq44iYfQadrw_3d_3d > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 09:44:57 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:44:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] ARIN / CAIDA IPv6 Survey In-Reply-To: <47D67386.5010903@rits.org.br> References: <002c01c8836e$02706260$07512720$@net> <47D67386.5010903@rits.org.br> Message-ID: hi, On 11 Mar 2008, at 07:56, Carlos Afonso wrote: > guess other RIRs could do (if not already doing) the same. what i think is really significant is paying attention to what CAIDA is doing/saying. as far as I am concerned they are the at the pinnacle of technical evaluation of what is going on - and I have a strong faith in their objectivity and sense of a-politics/a- religiosity. (in so far as i believe anyone in science and technology can be objective and a-political/a-religious - but that is another esoteric discussion best avoided at the moment) a wiki I would recommend checking from time to time on both IPv4 address exhaustion and on the coming of IPv6 is: https://wiki.caida.org/wiki/iic/bin/view a. On 11 Mar 2008, at 07:56, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From plzak at arin.net Tue Mar 11 10:10:10 2008 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:10:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] ARIN / CAIDA IPv6 Survey In-Reply-To: References: <002c01c8836e$02706260$07512720$@net> <47D67386.5010903@rits.org.br> Message-ID: And there is the ARIN IPv6 wiki at http://www.getipv6.info Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:45 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] ARIN / CAIDA IPv6 Survey > > hi, > > > On 11 Mar 2008, at 07:56, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > guess other RIRs could do (if not already doing) the same. > > what i think is really significant is paying attention to what CAIDA > is doing/saying. as far as I am concerned they are the at the > pinnacle of technical evaluation of what is going on - and I have a > strong faith in their objectivity and sense of a-politics/a- > religiosity. (in so far as i believe anyone in science and technology > can be objective and a-political/a-religious - but that is another > esoteric discussion best avoided at the moment) > > a wiki I would recommend checking from time to time on both IPv4 > address exhaustion and on the coming of IPv6 is: > https://wiki.caida.org/wiki/iic/bin/view > > a. > > On 11 Mar 2008, at 07:56, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 10:23:51 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:23:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] ARIN / CAIDA IPv6 Survey In-Reply-To: References: <002c01c8836e$02706260$07512720$@net> <47D67386.5010903@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080311142351.GA2868@hserus.net> Avri Doria [11/03/08 09:44 -0400]: > what i think is really significant is paying attention to what CAIDA is > doing/saying. as far as I am concerned they are the at the pinnacle of > technical evaluation of what is going on - and I have a strong faith in I fully agree CAIDA brings two very valuable things to the table here - * Technical expertise * Statistical rigor Besides their completely apolitical and research oriented nature. This will be very valuable, and I trust the other RIRs are doing this as well. I look forward to the results. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 11 13:44:14 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:44:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] ARIN / CAIDA IPv6 Survey In-Reply-To: <20080311142351.GA2868@hserus.net> References: <002c01c8836e$02706260$07512720$@net> <47D67386.5010903@rits.org.br> <20080311142351.GA2868@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Avri Doria [11/03/08 09:44 -0400]: > > > what i think is really significant is paying attention to what CAIDA is > > doing/saying. as far as I am concerned they are the at the pinnacle of > > technical evaluation of what is going on - and I have a strong faith in > > I fully agree > me too! > CAIDA brings two very valuable things to the table here - > > * Technical expertise > * Statistical rigor and cool toys that make pretty pictures 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Mar 11 17:30:32 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:30:32 +1100 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company selling Cuba trips' Message-ID: <039501c883bf$298dcc10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Can Anyone shed any light on this?? >US seizes domain name of Spanish company selling Cuba trips >By Joel Hruska | Published: March 07, 2008 - 04:36PM CT >http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080307-us-interferes-with-travel-to- cuba.html >The United States has often presented itself as the guardian of Internet >free speech. China may censor the Internet, and otherwise-civilized >nations such as Germany or France may attempt to block what they view as >unacceptable material, but the United States of America likes to think >of itself as a place that doesn't censor people online... unless you >happen to own a foreign travel business that offers trips to Cuba. Under >such circumstances, as Steve Marshall discovered, all bets are off. > >Steve Marshall is a British citizen living in Spain. For the past >decade, he has operated an online travel agency that specializes in >selling trips to Cuba to various European nationals. Marshall operated a >number of Cuban-specific web sites, including several that focused >specifically on the literary and historical aspects of Cuba, and >maintained them in English, French, and Spanish. The Internet Archive >has some of Marshall's web material on file. The sites themselves don't >appear to have been particularly well-designed-both Flash and text ads >abound-but there's no evidence that Marshall failed to provide the >services he advertised. > >According to the Department of the Treasury, however, Marshall and his >business helped Americans evade the US embargo against Cuba. A 2004 DoT >(Department of the Treasury) press release stated: "This travel provider >is not only a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to >oppress its people, but it also facilitates the evasion of U.S. sanction >policy." The PR goes on to assert that Tour and Marketing International >Ltd. (Marshall's company) advertised itself as the number one agency for >American travelers, claimed it could serve any traveler, and insisted >that Americans interested in traveling to Cuba use the company's online >payment system. > >Marshall's domain name registrar, eNom, is based in the US. It >apparently didn't learn that his company had been blacklisted for two >and a half years. When it did, however, the registrar promptly shut down >Marshall's sites without notification and has since refused to release >the domain names to him. Marshall has since rebuilt his business using a >European registrar and the .net rather than the .com suffix, but his >experience raises troubling questions. > >As previously noted, Marshall is a British citizen operating a business >from Spain, with servers located in the Bahamas. He does not claim that >no Americans ever visited Cuba, but he has stated that he was >uninterested in marketing his services to the US. In this case, the >Department of the Treasury was able to shut down his business without >notification or negotiation of any sort. Even if he wanted to appeal the >decision, Marshall has no organization to which he can appeal, save his >registrar, which can simply claim to have been following government >orders. > >If the US intends to continue presenting itself as the guardian of >Internet rights, situations like this require a bit more delicacy. By >effectively shutting down Marshall's business, the United States has >committed the censorship it condemns in other nations. Even worse, the >Department of Treasury effectively shut down an international business >without any type of due process. Both France and Germany followed a >court process when investigating Yahoo for alleged improprieties, and >the company in question (Yahoo) had the opportunity to respond to the >charges in a court of law. Marshall was afforded no such luxury. > >While the Internet may be global in nature, foreign companies may very >well limit their use of US registrars and hosting services out of >concern that activities targeted at other countries could be shut down >here. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 13:41 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Tue Mar 11 17:44:30 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:44:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company selling In-Reply-To: <039501c883bf$298dcc10$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <039501c883bf$298dcc10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080311214430.GA15653@hserus.net> Ian Peter [12/03/08 08:30 +1100]: >Can Anyone shed any light on this?? > I thought this was discussed quite extensively a few days back - thread started by Riaz Tayob forwarding on an article. Some more insightful discussion on the principle of sovereignityetc after the first one or two emails criticizing Tayob. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 11 17:46:40 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:46:40 +1100 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company sellingCuba trips' In-Reply-To: <20080311214430.GA15653@hserus.net> Message-ID: <039c01c883c1$6c8c4d00$8b00a8c0@IAN> Sorry for posting again - still catching up on unread email...... > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: 12 March 2008 08:45 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company > sellingCuba trips' > > Ian Peter [12/03/08 08:30 +1100]: > >Can Anyone shed any light on this?? > > > > I thought this was discussed quite extensively a few days back - thread > started by Riaz Tayob forwarding on an article. Some more insightful > discussion on the principle of sovereignityetc after the first one or two > emails criticizing Tayob. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: > 11/03/2008 13:41 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 13:41 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 12 06:23:14 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:53:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <039c01c883c1$6c8c4d00$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All, I understand that soon there will be a call for forwarding nominations to fill in MAG vacancies. I invite comments on how should we choose our nominations. Should we use a randomly formed noncom? The process is to get some volunteers - ideally at least 4 times the needed number of members for the noncom - and then do a lottery to select the noncom. Or should it be a direct voting by members, something like giving points to each person who offers herself as a possible nominee. Thanks Parminder PS: I am sorting out some procedural issues, and we should be able to hold the elections for co-coordinator by the next week. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 12 06:34:51 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:04:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop proposals for IGF Hyd Message-ID: <20080312103454.B5F52A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> We have till the 30th April to submit workshop proposals for IGF Hyderabad. Comments are invited on what workshops IGC will like to organize/ sponsor at the IGF. Personally, I think that 'role and mandate of IGF' edition 2 will be a natural choice. Other issues that we proposed as main sessions but do not figure in the draft agenda, I think, should also be considered for IGC sponsored workshops. Being able to hold a couple of good workshops, apart from making good substantive contributions, will help further improve the profile of IGC as an important CS presence and voice at the IGF. And I think it is not too difficult to do so given that we have many committed members who are ready to contribute their energies to this collective cause. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 12 06:49:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:19:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] civil society outreach Message-ID: <20080312104928.0BDCA67819@smtp1.electricembers.net> I had proposed an outreach effort from the IGC towards CS persons who attended IGF, Rio. (Pl see enclosed email of 24th Jan). I received one positive response with a proposed addition, which I am incorporating in an email that I am sending out to a list of Rio attendees. The draft of the letter will be as follows. Dear .. This email is from the Co-Coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). IGC is a group of civil society actors who are interested in IG issues, and wish 'to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making' (to quote the charter of the group, which may be seen at http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html). Your participation at the IGF Rio suggests that you may be interested in associating with such a group. We are especially trying to reach out to such individuals who have not merely an academic interest in IG but are interested in pursuing a relatively active advocacy agenda in this area. Issues like openness of the Internet, freedom of expression, privacy, Internet and development and IPR versus public domain on the Internet are some important Internet policy areas which require active civil society engagement at a global level. A civil society group like the IGC which conducts most of its activities online, supported with some crucial interventions in face-to-face meetings on IG issues, provides a useful forum for individuals who may be differently situated in terms of availability of time and other resources, but are nonetheless interested in impacting Internet policy making. IGC's mailing list is also one of the most active forums of informed discussions on IG issues with very diverse viewpoints. Participation in these discussions may help you understand and shape civil society perspectives on IG. If you are interested in joining the group, at the first level you may subscribe to the IGC mailing list using the web interface at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/subscribe/governance . In addition, if you are willing to subscribe to the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html ) please reply to this email with such indication, and we will add your name to the list of individuals who have subscribed to the IGC charter. Endorsement of the charter is a condition for full membership of the IGC, which inter alia means that one has voting rights for making collective decisions on behalf of the group. Thanks... " (ends) Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: [governance] IGC review Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:29:58 +0530 Size: 34075 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 12 08:00:09 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:00:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] workshop proposals for IGF Hyd In-Reply-To: <20080312103454.B5F52A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080312103454.B5F52A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, good timing. I was just about to send the following! A renewed call for workshops will be made soon (early next week, March 17 on.) If you organized a workshop or other event in Rio and have not yet submitted a report, please write one up now. Ask the secretariat if you are not sure of the format, but a page or two of A4 (for example, just as a guide... 400 to 500 words) would be fine. There were about 80 parallel events in Rio, so far about 13 have sent in reports (six workshops.) . Not very good. At the last meeting of the MAG the group decided: 1. All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event. Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the following year. (i.e. organize an event in 2008 and fail to report means no space in 2009). and 2. Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.) (see ) So, please submit your reports. I think this fair, free space and facilities at a major international meeting, couple of pages isn't much to ask. Adam At 4:04 PM +0530 3/12/08, Parminder wrote: >We have till the 30th April to submit workshop proposals for IGF Hyderabad. > >Comments are invited on what workshops IGC will >like to organize/ sponsor at the IGF. > >Personally, I think that Œrole and mandate of >IGF¹ edition 2 will be a natural choice. > >Other issues that we proposed as main sessions >but do not figure in the draft agenda, I think, >should also be considered for IGC sponsored >workshops. Being able to hold a couple of good >workshops, apart from making good substantive >contributions, will help further improve the >profile of IGC as an important CS presence and >voice at the IGF. And I think it is not too >difficult to do so given that we have many >committed members who are ready to contribute >their energies to this collective cause.   > >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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Mar 12 08:09:41 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:09:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder and all, Before entering such a huge resources-consuming process, I think it's worth having some discussion inside IGC on whether it is desirable and whether it makes sense to propose IGC nominees, considering the experience with MAG members we have had so far, and discussions we have had at many different occasions on this list, on: - the lack of sufficient reports from IGC nominees to this list. - the pretty obscure status of "stakeholders' representatives" to the MAG: since they're participating in their individual capacity, they cannot by any mean represent any group. - more generally speaking the differences of opinions showed on this list on the role of CS (cf. our latest discussion when trying to prepare an IGC statement to the last IGF consultation meeting in Geneva), on which you've called for clarification so many times yourself, in your capacity of IGC coordinator. We may think of other options, instead of IGC nominations: e.g. individual support to (self-)nominations by individuals and/or by CS organizations/networks. Thus, the overall process of selecting MAG members (including final selection by the UN Secretary General) would be clearer, more transparent, and hopefully more accountable. Best, Meryem Le 12 mars 08 à 11:23, Parminder a écrit : > > > Hi All, > > > > I understand that soon there will be a call for forwarding > nominations to fill in MAG vacancies. I invite comments on how > should we choose our nominations. Should we use a randomly formed > noncom? The process is to get some volunteers – ideally at least 4 > times the needed number of members for the noncom – and then do a > lottery to select the noncom. > > > > Or should it be a direct voting by members, something like giving > points to each person who offers herself as a possible nominee. > > > > Thanks > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: I am sorting out some procedural issues, and we should be able > to hold the elections for co-coordinator by the next week. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Wed Mar 12 08:15:28 2008 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:15:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] workshop proposals for IGF Hyd In-Reply-To: <20080312103454.B5F52A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080312103454.B5F52A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: The man problem for us, all contribution must be in english and we are in french speaking country. So it's difficult tohave translator and to pay him. Even translation from altaviste is not easy for comprehension. Baudouin 2008/3/12, Parminder : > > We have till the 30th April to submit workshop proposals for IGF > Hyderabad. > > > > Comments are invited on what workshops IGC will like to organize/ sponsor > at the IGF. > > > > Personally, I think that 'role and mandate of IGF' edition 2 will be a > natural choice. > > > > Other issues that we proposed as main sessions but do not figure in the > draft agenda, I think, should also be considered for IGC sponsored > workshops. Being able to hold a couple of good workshops, apart from making > good substantive contributions, will help further improve the profile of IGC > as an important CS presence and voice at the IGF. And I think it is not too > difficult to do so given that we have many committed members who are ready > to contribute their energies to this collective cause. > > > > 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 TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Mar 12 08:50:23 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:50:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] workshop proposals for IGF Hyd In-Reply-To: References: <20080312103454.B5F52A6C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Dear Baudouin, I think you should be able to submit your report in French (particularly if the workshop was conducted primarily in French etc.) Can see no reason why reports have to be in English. Best, Adam At 1:15 PM +0100 3/12/08, CAFEC wrote: >The man problem for us, all contribution must be >in english and we are in french speaking >country. So it's difficult tohave translator and >to pay him. > >Even translation from altaviste is not easy for comprehension. > >Baudouin > >2008/3/12, Parminder ><parminder at itforchange.net>: > >We have till the 30th April to submit workshop proposals for IGF Hyderabad. > > > >Comments are invited on what workshops IGC will >like to organize/ sponsor at the IGF. > > > >Personally, I think that 'role and mandate of >IGF' edition 2 will be a natural choice. > > > >Other issues that we proposed as main sessions >but do not figure in the draft agenda, I think, >should also be considered for IGC sponsored >workshops. Being able to hold a couple of good >workshops, apart from making good substantive >contributions, will help further improve the >profile of IGC as an important CS presence and >voice at the IGF. And I think it is not too >difficult to do so given that we have many >committed members who are ready to contribute >their energies to this collective cause.   > > > >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 >TEL:00243998983491 >EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Mar 12 09:33:01 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:33:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I am not sure what the process is for the rotation. I thought I knew when I left the MAG meeting couple of weeks ago, but reading the meeting report I'm now less sure (at least not sure enough to recommend starting a process based on my understanding.) Please see , paragraphs 3 - 11. I have asked Markus to explain what he expects to happen, if there will be a formal announcement of a call for new members, deadline etc. Will let you know. Carlos recently sent a note forwarded from the MAG list clarifying the 50/50 division between govt and others. Copied below. I have no idea who from the non-govt "other" group is planning to leave/does not wish to continue. I do want to continue as a member of the MAG. The process used in 2006 is described here Adam At 7:43 PM -0300 3/8/08, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >Dear people, in response to my request, in the >MAG mail list, for clarification, Markus Kummer >provided a thorough review of the issue and >authorized me to copy it to the governance list. > >Below is Markus' reply to my msg (which is just after Markus's). > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [igf_members] clarification >Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:52:30 +0100 >From: Markus KUMMER >To: ca at rits.org.br >CC: IGF Members > >Dear Carlos, > >You are right insofar as there was never any formal decision taken on >the composition of the MAG by anyone but by the Secretary-General >himself. As you also, rightly, point out, there is nothing in the Tunis >Agenda on how the IGF should operate, except some vague references that >it should build on existing structures, be light-weight and based on >multistakeholder cooperation. > >For this reason we held broad-based consultations on these matters two >years ago. As was to be expected, different views were held by different >actors. Brazil, followed by other developing countries, first formulated >an approach that should be based on WSIS structures, that is on three >different bureaus - one for governments, one for private sector and one >for civil society. These three bureaus should meet separately and, >occasionally, jointly. The governmental bureau would be composed of >twenty members (four for each region) while the other two bureaus should >be composed of ten members each. Eventually, this proposal was endorsed >by the G77. (All regional groups indicated that, based on past >experience, they needed to be represented by at least four members to >establish a sub-regional balance.) > >WEOG countries, and, as far as I can remember, also private sector, >spoke in favour of a small programme committee of about 10-15 members. I >can't remember in detail what civil society proposed, but they were >mostly in favour of an integrated multistakeholder body. > >The Secretary-General found a formula to bridge the different proposals >- on the one hand, the G77 with regard to the the overall balance and >all the others with regard to an integrated group. The name chosen for >the group was also a compromise - neither 'bureau' nor 'programme committee' > >This worked remarkably well. As last week's discussions showed, nobody >is perfectly happy with this formula - some governments find that >governments are under-represented while non-governmental actors find >that governments are over-represented. At least it seems that everybody >is equally unhappy - usually this is a sign of a good compromise. > >The original draft of the summary report reflected this delicate >balance. The Chairman held the view that this formula was not open for >discussion and finally, at the request of a member of the group, we >settled for the formulation we have now (which, I admit, may be somewhat >ambiguous.) > >One final remark for your consideration: after Athens, there was a >general feeling that it was important to increase efforts to engage >governments more, as governments had been somewhat reluctant to accept >the informal nature of the interactions with other stakeholders. Any >change in the composition would not be helpful in this regard. > >If you are interested, you can read the history of the discussions we >had two years ago as it is recorded in real-time transcription on our >Web site. > >I hope this helps. > >Best regards >Markus > > > >Dear all, > > > >I tried to track info on a decision which supposedly determined the > >50%-50% rule, as stated by the Chair in our last MAG meeting as a > >given, > >and could not find any formal statement establishing this rule. > >Certainly not in the official Tunis documents. > > > >Could this be clarified by the secretariat? > > > >fraternal rgds > > > >--c.a. > > At 1:09 PM +0100 3/12/08, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Hi Parminder and all, > >Before entering such a huge resources-consuming >process, I think it's worth having some >discussion inside IGC on whether it is desirable >and whether it makes sense to propose IGC >nominees, considering the experience with MAG >members we have had so far, and discussions we >have had at many different occasions on this >list, on: >- the lack of sufficient reports from IGC nominees to this list. >- the pretty obscure status of "stakeholders' >representatives" to the MAG: since they're >participating in their individual capacity, they >cannot by any mean represent any group. >- more generally speaking the differences of >opinions showed on this list on the role of CS >(cf. our latest discussion when trying to >prepare an IGC statement to the last IGF >consultation meeting in Geneva), on which you've >called for clarification so many times yourself, >in your capacity of IGC coordinator. > >We may think of other options, instead of IGC >nominations: e.g. individual support to >(self-)nominations by individuals and/or by CS >organizations/networks. Thus, the overall >process of selecting MAG members (including >final selection by the UN Secretary General) >would be clearer, more transparent, and >hopefully more accountable. > >Best, >Meryem > >Le 12 mars 08 à 11:23, Parminder a écrit : > (deleted) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Mar 12 09:43:28 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:43:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company sellingCuba In-Reply-To: <039c01c883c1$6c8c4d00$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <039c01c883c1$6c8c4d00$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <47D7DE00.8070602@rits.org.br> There is a lot more. It seems the list of blacklisted domains related to Cuba (or the Cuba theme) is quite extensive. The OFAC list can be seen at: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/sdnlist.txt Rosa Miriam, a Cuban writer, has made an analysis of the list: "How many .com domain names linked with Cuba are included in the black list of the American Treasury Department? ... OFAC’s black list shows 557 “accursed” enterprises in the entire world and 3,719 .com domains that have been blocked in the Network without any previous notification to its owners. To give an idea of what all this means, it is enough to see the most recent report on match-domains (www.latinoamericann.org). Cuba is said to have 1,434 websites with .cu domains. That is, the United States has blocked almost three times more sites than all those the country has registered under the generic of our country." Miriam's full article can be read at: http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?&secc=12&item=4419&c=2 frt rgds --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Sorry for posting again - still catching up on unread email...... > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: 12 March 2008 08:45 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company >> sellingCuba trips' >> >> Ian Peter [12/03/08 08:30 +1100]: >>> Can Anyone shed any light on this?? >>> >> I thought this was discussed quite extensively a few days back - thread >> started by Riaz Tayob forwarding on an article. Some more insightful >> discussion on the principle of sovereignityetc after the first one or two >> emails criticizing Tayob. >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: >> 11/03/2008 13:41 >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 > 13:41 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 12 09:56:34 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:56:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company In-Reply-To: <47D7DE00.8070602@rits.org.br> References: <039c01c883c1$6c8c4d00$8b00a8c0@IAN> <47D7DE00.8070602@rits.org.br> Message-ID: FWIW, early in WSIS Cuba tried to get this para into the Geneva declaration: 56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be secured in accordance with international law, bearing in mind that some countries are affected by unilateral measures which are not compatible with it and which create obstacles for international trade. (US and Canada objected.) Adam >There is a lot more. It seems the list of >blacklisted domains related to Cuba (or the Cuba >theme) is quite extensive. The OFAC list can be >seen at: > >http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/sdnlist.txt > >Rosa Miriam, a Cuban writer, has made an >analysis of the list: "How many .com domain >names linked with Cuba are included in the black >list of the American Treasury Department? ... >OFAC¹s black list shows 557 ³accursed² >enterprises in the entire world and 3,719 .com >domains that have been blocked in the Network >without any previous notification to its owners. >To give an idea of what all this means, it is >enough to see the most recent report on >match-domains (www.latinoamericann.org). Cuba is >said to have 1,434 websites with .cu domains. >That is, the United States has blocked almost >three times more sites than all those the >country has registered under the generic of our >country." > >Miriam's full article can be read at: > >http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?&secc=12&item=4419&c=2 > >frt rgds > >--c.a. > >Ian Peter wrote: >>Sorry for posting again - still catching up on unread email...... >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >>>Sent: 12 March 2008 08:45 >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >>>Subject: Re: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company >>>sellingCuba trips' >>> >>>Ian Peter [12/03/08 08:30 +1100]: >>>>Can Anyone shed any light on this?? >>>> >>>I thought this was discussed quite extensively a few days back - thread >>>started by Riaz Tayob forwarding on an article. Some more insightful >>>discussion on the principle of sovereignityetc after the first one or two >>>emails criticizing Tayob. >>> >>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>Checked by AVG. >>>Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: >>>11/03/2008 13:41 >>> >> >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus >>Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: >>11/03/2008 >>13:41 >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Wed Mar 12 12:19:09 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:19:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company selling Cuba trips' In-Reply-To: <039501c883bf$298dcc10$8b00a8c0@IAN> References: <039501c883bf$298dcc10$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <6C156B86-1E11-4733-85AF-B26A70DE4B51@internet.law.pro> Several comments, one email. See below. Ian Peter wrote: > Can Anyone shed any light on this?? Check the archives of this list. We discussed this last week also (see "a wave of the watch list") Carlos Afonso wrote: > There is a lot more. It seems the list of blacklisted domains > related to Cuba (or the Cuba theme) is quite extensive. More details of the sanctions program is here: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/ascii/cuba.txt What's also worth mentioning is that any U.S.-based company can seek a license from the U.S. to engage in business transactions with companies on the list. Lee McKnight wrote: > As this thread suggests, the Internet has a levelling effect as now > all nations can seek (and may feel they have cause to) apply laws > extraterritorially. Perhaps the effects are different, but haven't nations always been able to use trade as a lever to apply their policy judgments extraterritorially? The U.S. OFAC site makes the case that U.S. trade embargoes go back to the War of 1812. * * * I keep coming to the conclusion that there's an IGF session in all this. Lessons learned can be: (1) if you want to be free from the judgments of other nations, register in your ccTLD. (2) for gTLDs, understand that your choice of registrar, and the registration contract to which you agree, has implications about what laws will govern your relationship to your domain name. (3) same as (2) for any web host or email provider. -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed Mar 12 12:32:28 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:32:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company selling In-Reply-To: <6C156B86-1E11-4733-85AF-B26A70DE4B51@internet.law.pro> References: <039501c883bf$298dcc10$8b00a8c0@IAN> <6C156B86-1E11-4733-85AF-B26A70DE4B51@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <47D8059C.1060800@rits.org.br> Thanks, Bret, for the insightful comments as usual. I think it is indeed a major theme for at least an IGF main workshop. fraternal rgds --c.a. Bret Fausett wrote: > Several comments, one email. See below. > > Ian Peter wrote: >> Can Anyone shed any light on this?? > > Check the archives of this list. We discussed this last week also (see > "a wave of the watch list") > > Carlos Afonso wrote: >> There is a lot more. It seems the list of blacklisted domains related >> to Cuba (or the Cuba theme) is quite extensive. > > More details of the sanctions program is here: > http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/ascii/cuba.txt > > What's also worth mentioning is that any U.S.-based company can seek a > license from the U.S. to engage in business transactions with companies > on the list. > > Lee McKnight wrote: >> As this thread suggests, the Internet has a levelling effect as now >> all nations can seek (and may feel they have cause to) apply laws >> extraterritorially. > > Perhaps the effects are different, but haven't nations always been able > to use trade as a lever to apply their policy judgments > extraterritorially? The U.S. OFAC site makes the case that U.S. trade > embargoes go back to the War of 1812. > > * * * > > I keep coming to the conclusion that there's an IGF session in all this. > Lessons learned can be: > > (1) if you want to be free from the judgments of other nations, register > in your ccTLD. > > (2) for gTLDs, understand that your choice of registrar, and the > registration contract to which you agree, has implications about what > laws will govern your relationship to your domain name. > > (3) same as (2) for any web host or email provider. > > -- Bret > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Mar 12 12:30:47 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:30:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> I think we should follow some basic guidelines: 1. Rotation would be for 1/3 of the MAG (I guess this means the whole MAG and not only the 50% non-gov people). 2. All members are nominated by the SG for one year, so they are now all non-members formally; it means that the SG will choose new names from suggested lists presented by stakeholder groups and governments for 1/3, and will choose from the current list of MAG members the other 2/3. 3. As usual, stakeholder groups should go through an open process of getting candidates and recommending members. We should, I think, avoid as much as possible self-nominations (although we should consider the explicit wish of our current reps to continue, if they so express this, but reminding ourselves of the current inbalances in representation). 4. Nominations for CS reps should come from the different regions, and indicated by cauci (or equivalent groups, if any) from these regions. For example, for LA&C we are trying to arrive at names through our alc-cmsi caucus list. 5. Gender, regional, and other balances should be considered as much as possible in our final list. 6. Last but not least, capacity to participate (both in online and face to face meetings) is essential -- this means financial support available to travel, time to get involved in the list discussions and so on. fraternal rgds --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > I am not sure what the process is for the rotation. I thought I knew > when I left the MAG meeting couple of weeks ago, but reading the meeting > report I'm now less sure (at least not sure enough to recommend starting > a process based on my understanding.) Please see > , > paragraphs 3 - 11. > > I have asked Markus to explain what he expects to happen, if there will > be a formal announcement of a call for new members, deadline etc. Will > let you know. > > Carlos recently sent a note forwarded from the MAG list clarifying the > 50/50 division between govt and others. Copied below. I have no idea who > from the non-govt "other" group is planning to leave/does not wish to > continue. > > I do want to continue as a member of the MAG. > > The process used in 2006 is described here > > > Adam > > > > At 7:43 PM -0300 3/8/08, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >> Dear people, in response to my request, in the MAG mail list, for >> clarification, Markus Kummer provided a thorough review of the issue >> and authorized me to copy it to the governance list. >> >> Below is Markus' reply to my msg (which is just after Markus's). >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [igf_members] clarification >> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:52:30 +0100 >> From: Markus KUMMER >> To: ca at rits.org.br >> CC: IGF Members >> >> Dear Carlos, >> >> You are right insofar as there was never any formal decision taken on >> the composition of the MAG by anyone but by the Secretary-General >> himself. As you also, rightly, point out, there is nothing in the Tunis >> Agenda on how the IGF should operate, except some vague references that >> it should build on existing structures, be light-weight and based on >> multistakeholder cooperation. >> >> For this reason we held broad-based consultations on these matters two >> years ago. As was to be expected, different views were held by different >> actors. Brazil, followed by other developing countries, first formulated >> an approach that should be based on WSIS structures, that is on three >> different bureaus - one for governments, one for private sector and one >> for civil society. These three bureaus should meet separately and, >> occasionally, jointly. The governmental bureau would be composed of >> twenty members (four for each region) while the other two bureaus should >> be composed of ten members each. Eventually, this proposal was endorsed >> by the G77. (All regional groups indicated that, based on past >> experience, they needed to be represented by at least four members to >> establish a sub-regional balance.) >> >> WEOG countries, and, as far as I can remember, also private sector, >> spoke in favour of a small programme committee of about 10-15 members. I >> can't remember in detail what civil society proposed, but they were >> mostly in favour of an integrated multistakeholder body. >> >> The Secretary-General found a formula to bridge the different proposals >> - on the one hand, the G77 with regard to the the overall balance and >> all the others with regard to an integrated group. The name chosen for >> the group was also a compromise - neither 'bureau' nor 'programme >> committee' >> >> This worked remarkably well. As last week's discussions showed, nobody >> is perfectly happy with this formula - some governments find that >> governments are under-represented while non-governmental actors find >> that governments are over-represented. At least it seems that everybody >> is equally unhappy - usually this is a sign of a good compromise. >> >> The original draft of the summary report reflected this delicate >> balance. The Chairman held the view that this formula was not open for >> discussion and finally, at the request of a member of the group, we >> settled for the formulation we have now (which, I admit, may be somewhat >> ambiguous.) >> >> One final remark for your consideration: after Athens, there was a >> general feeling that it was important to increase efforts to engage >> governments more, as governments had been somewhat reluctant to accept >> the informal nature of the interactions with other stakeholders. Any >> change in the composition would not be helpful in this regard. >> >> If you are interested, you can read the history of the discussions we >> had two years ago as it is recorded in real-time transcription on our >> Web site. >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> Best regards >> Markus >> >> >> >Dear all, >> > >> >I tried to track info on a decision which supposedly determined the >> >50%-50% rule, as stated by the Chair in our last MAG meeting as a >> >given, >> >and could not find any formal statement establishing this rule. >> >Certainly not in the official Tunis documents. >> > >> >Could this be clarified by the secretariat? >> > >> >fraternal rgds >> > >> >--c.a. >> > > > > > > > > At 1:09 PM +0100 3/12/08, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> Hi Parminder and all, >> >> Before entering such a huge resources-consuming process, I think it's >> worth having some discussion inside IGC on whether it is desirable and >> whether it makes sense to propose IGC nominees, considering the >> experience with MAG members we have had so far, and discussions we >> have had at many different occasions on this list, on: >> - the lack of sufficient reports from IGC nominees to this list. >> - the pretty obscure status of "stakeholders' representatives" to the >> MAG: since they're participating in their individual capacity, they >> cannot by any mean represent any group. >> - more generally speaking the differences of opinions showed on this >> list on the role of CS (cf. our latest discussion when trying to >> prepare an IGC statement to the last IGF consultation meeting in >> Geneva), on which you've called for clarification so many times >> yourself, in your capacity of IGC coordinator. >> >> We may think of other options, instead of IGC nominations: e.g. >> individual support to (self-)nominations by individuals and/or by CS >> organizations/networks. Thus, the overall process of selecting MAG >> members (including final selection by the UN Secretary General) would >> be clearer, more transparent, and hopefully more accountable. >> >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 12 mars 08 à 11:23, Parminder a écrit : >> > > (deleted) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Wed Mar 12 14:22:22 2008 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:22:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] web: information management Message-ID: <47D81F5E.7070709@gmail.com> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080312-study-amount-of-digital-info-global-storage-capacity.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 12 23:15:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:45:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080313031527.C9C0B67858@smtp1.electricembers.net> > FWIW, early in WSIS Cuba tried to get this para into the Geneva > declaration: > > 56. Access to information and communication > technologies shall be secured in accordance with > international law, bearing in mind that some > countries are affected by unilateral measures > which are not compatible with it and which create > obstacles for international trade. (US and Canada > objected.) > > > Adam We still have in the Geneva declaration of principles 46. In building the Information Society, States are strongly urged to take steps with a view to the avoidance of, and refrain from, any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries, and that hinders the well-being of their population. And in Tunis Agenda 94. We acknowledge that everyone should benefit from the potential that the Information Society offers. Therefore, we invite governments to assist, on a voluntary basis, those countries affected by any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries, and that hinders the well-being of their population. (end) 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Mar 13 00:34:56 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:34:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> Message-ID: >I think we should follow some basic guidelines: > >1. Rotation would be for 1/3 of the MAG (I guess this means the >whole MAG and not only the 50% non-gov people). "Rotating up to 1/3 of the members within each stakeholder group each year was seen as the appropriate way forward." and "50% of its members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained. As governments had their own selection mechanisms through their regional groupings, they would be asked to forward their proposals to the Secretariat." Which kind of suggests to me the secretariat (and or SG's office) will do some balancing across the "other" 50%, while governments will be pretty much left on their own. Govt block has an in built regional balance, and have been asked to respect gender diversity, etc. >2. All members are nominated by the SG for one year, so they are now >all non-members formally; Not my understanding, I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. The point about continuity was emphasized so as not to repeat the mess of last year when the MAG was stuck in limbo for 6 months. "It was understood that any decision on how to proceed would be left to the Secretary-General and that any list of candidates would include the current MAG members who wished to continue. One of the criteria passed on to the Secretary-General would be the need for continuity and the request that approximately 2/3 of the members of the current group be carried over into the new group." > it means that the SG will choose new names from suggested lists >presented by stakeholder groups and governments for 1/3, and will >choose from the current list of MAG members the other 2/3. Not sure about him choosing from governments (in principle for sure, but reality?), but the other's yes. Agree pretty much with all said below (3, 4, 5 -- for 6 resources to attend meeting important, but if meetings are set with enough time and people actually know they are members [you can't get a grant for a group you don't know you're a member of... think about the May and September consultations last year], then funds for developing nation members can be available. But having time is important, on top of everything else it's four meetings/year.) If we're looking at a 1/3 rotation, and I think there are currently 7 CS members of the MAG (people on the MAG list argue that many members represent a broad range of interests, but I see 7 when considering those who have been involved in CS as it continues on from WSIS) then under those guidelines we need to find how many, 1 or 2? But as CS is under represented, part of our argument should be just that -- CS has been a very significant contributor to WSIS and IGF (note participation, more than any other stakeholder and the number of workshops organized [lead] etc) and number of members should be increased. Again, I think best to argue why CS should have more members, make our case for that, and not argue others should have less. Best, Adam >3. As usual, stakeholder groups should go through an open process of >getting candidates and recommending members. We should, I think, >avoid as much as possible self-nominations (although we should >consider the explicit wish of our current reps to continue, if they >so express this, but reminding ourselves of the current inbalances >in representation). > >4. Nominations for CS reps should come from the different regions, >and indicated by cauci (or equivalent groups, if any) from these >regions. For example, for LA&C we are trying to arrive at names >through our alc-cmsi caucus list. > >5. Gender, regional, and other balances should be considered as much >as possible in our final list. > >6. Last but not least, capacity to participate (both in online and >face to face meetings) is essential -- this means financial support >available to travel, time to get involved in the list discussions >and so on. > >fraternal rgds > >--c.a. > >Adam Peake wrote: >>I am not sure what the process is for the rotation. I thought I >>knew when I left the MAG meeting couple of weeks ago, but reading >>the meeting report I'm now less sure (at least not sure enough to >>recommend starting a process based on my understanding.) Please see >>, >>paragraphs 3 - 11. >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 13 01:30:06 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:30:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <8CED7F8A-BCC2-47BD-AA96-3BA3C08B6423@psg.com> On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: > I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So > the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. this is my understanding as well. 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 vb at bertola.eu Thu Mar 13 04:09:29 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:09:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: >> I think we should follow some basic guidelines: >> >> 1. Rotation would be for 1/3 of the MAG (I guess this means the whole >> MAG and not only the 50% non-gov people). > > > "Rotating up to 1/3 of the members within each stakeholder group each > year was seen as the appropriate way forward." and "50% of its members > proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be > maintained. So, who gets to pick which members of the MAG are confirmed and which ones are subject to reconfirming? What happens if you have to rotate one third of the group but almost everyone in the group wants to continue? I've seen a commitment to rotate "up to one third" (which might mean no rotation at all) but I've not seen commitments to rotate "at least X%". Frankly, I would think that rotating less than one third would be a joke. There was no rotation last year, so if you have ascertained that the right proportion of rotation is one third per year (which is already pretty low), one would expect that this year two thirds of the group would be rotated. Generally speaking, a group deciding for itself which and how many of its members need to be changed at the term's end, and deciding for very low values, does not look very good. Please don't be offended - I know that everyone's intentions are good, that establishing proper procedures in this informal environment is hard, that there is the need to cope with balancing constraints etc. - but the accountability and transparency of the MAG is still low, more than that of the governing bodies of other global Internet governance institutions. This is somewhat normal for such a young organization, but perhaps some stronger show of will and bolder effort could be done: from the outside, it really looks like the MAG is reluctant to change and plans to replace as few members as possible, and this is not encouraging for the credibility of the IGF. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 13 04:11:17 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:41:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <8CED7F8A-BCC2-47BD-AA96-3BA3C08B6423@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> > On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: > > > I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So > > the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. > > this is my understanding as well. > > a. We will like to believe it is so, but we know it wasn't so the last time around and there was a clear hiatus with no MAG. So how would it be so this time without a clear authorization from the right quarters for it. Is there anything of such nature? I think I also heard Vianna and Nitin say that Vianna steps down after the Feb MAG meeting. That looks like indicating non-automatic-continuity. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:00 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: > > > I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So > > the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. > > this is my understanding as well. > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Mar 13 05:12:14 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:12:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: > > On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So >> > the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. >> >> this is my understanding as well. >> >> a. > >We will like to believe it is so, but we know it wasn't so the last time >around and there was a clear hiatus with no MAG. So how would it be so this >time without a clear authorization from the right quarters for it. Is there >anything of such nature? perhaps you could ask for a definitive statement? I've given you my understanding, Avri's given her's. >I think I also heard Vianna and Nitin say that Vianna steps down after the >Feb MAG meeting. That looks like indicating non-automatic-continuity. Because the host changes each year. Again, if you want to know something, as the caucus coordinator you're in an ideal position just to ask the secretariat. Would be a good habit to get into rather than continuing loops on this list. Adam >Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:00 AM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG >> >> >> On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So >> > the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. >> >> this is my understanding as well. >> >> 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 riazt at iafrica.com Thu Mar 13 05:24:28 2008 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:24:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] ACLU - US - The Return of Total Information Awareness Message-ID: <47D8F2CC.4060109@iafrica.com> Snip: Mass data from a wide variety of sources – including the private sector – is being collected and scanned by a secretive military spy agency. This represents nothing less than a major change in American life – and unless stopped the consequences of this system for everybody will grow in magnitude along with the rivers of data that are collected about each of us – and that’s more and more every day. Some of the concerns include - Snip: * The erosion of privacy through the judicial creation of a distinction between content and "transactional" or "addressing" information (such as the recipients of e-mails or phone calls and the times and dates of each communication) through the Patriot Act and prior developments. * Partnerships between government agencies and private sector entities to collect and monitor customers’ data and transactions. The Return of Total Information Awareness by ACLU Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM PDT By Barry Steinhardt, director the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. Yesterday’s report in The Wall Street Journal about the NSA’s domestic spy dragnets should be major, major news. It is nothing less than the return of TIA: "Total Information Awareness." Yet there has been barely any followup coverage of the story in the mainstream media. I know the media thinks the sexual behavior of the governor of New York is earth-shatteringly important for American life – but this NSA report actually is. I mean, when we warn about a "surveillance society," this is what we’re talking about. This is it, this is the ballgame. Mass data from a wide variety of sources – including the private sector – is being collected and scanned by a secretive military spy agency. This represents nothing less than a major change in American life – and unless stopped the consequences of this system for everybody will grow in magnitude along with the rivers of data that are collected about each of us – and that’s more and more every day. The TIA program, you may recall, was a massive Pentagon plan (run by Admiral John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame) to tap into as many databases containing personal information about Americans as possible (program materials listed "Financial, Education, Travel, Medical, Veterinary, Country Entry, Place/Event Entry, Transportation, Housing, Critical Resources, Government, Communications"). All that information would then be pulled together and scanned for "suspicious" patterns. Given the density of the "data trails" that we all create in our daily lives today and in the future, it was a recipe for the routine surveillance of Americans and their every move. TIA was supposed to have been killed off by Congress in 2003 amid widespread objections to its sweeping Orwellian scope. There have been always been hints about a secret annex to the law that permitted some limited aspects of TIA to operate within the Pentagon’s black budget for intelligence and with respect to foreigners only. Now it appears that, like a vampire that can’t be killed except with a stake through its heart, TIA has arisen again from its coffin in full body with its voracious appetite for privacy of Americans and foreigners alike. The reporter on the Journal piece, Siobhan Gorman, describes stunning new spying capabilities that flow from a distributed collection of new domestic spying capabilities (each of which the ACLU has long warned against): * TIA and data mining more broadly * The NSA’s illegal wiretapping program, the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) * The Patriot Act’s broadening of FBI power to collect third-party personal information without a subpoena through Section 215 searches and National Security Letters. * The Treasury Department’s expanded surveillance of financial transactions through Cash Transaction Reporting and Suspicious Activity Reporting. * The CIA’s illegitimate access to the SWIFT database to monitor international financial transactions. * DHS’ efforts to increase collection and monitoring of airline passenger data. * Partnerships between government agencies and private sector entities to collect and monitor customers’ data and transactions. * The erosion of privacy through the judicial creation of a distinction between content and "transactional" or "addressing" information (such as the recipients of e-mails or phone calls and the times and dates of each communication) through the Patriot Act and prior developments. In the ongoing battle over FISA and the NSA’s warrantless spying program (which appears to be but one part of this larger effort), the government has been saying in effect, "trust us." Why should we trust an agency that has been running this secret program in contravention of the Wyden Amendment, the law passed by Congress shutting down TIA. It’s time for Congress to find out exactly what is going on here, inform the public, and put a stop to what appears to be the construction of a sweeping infrastructure for the routine mass surveillance of innocent people. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toeslist/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toeslist/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:toeslist-digest at yahoogroups.com mailto:toeslist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: toeslist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 13 05:35:07 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ACLU - US - The Return of Total Information Awareness Message-ID: <860794.71462.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> >From the feedback I've had over the years, this is nothing new. The Americans have been able to monitor telephone, email and whatever else they want, if they have had the desire to, for years. I suspect spy agencies around the world have been able to as well. There is a mountain in the United States whose name escapes me now,which buried deep within has the most amazing facility for monitoringanything and everything we do electronically. It may only be a drama, but I suspect there is also more than a hint of truth in the BBC programme Spooks. What's probably becoming more widely available is more than just spy agencies have access to this data now, and that they are getting better and better at monitoring us. I agree Eliot Spitzer's escapades are not earth shattering, but it is something new. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Riaz K Tayob To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, 13 March, 2008 8:24:28 PM Subject: [governance] ACLU - US - The Return of Total Information Awareness Snip: Mass data from a wide variety of sources – including the private sector – is being collected and scanned by a secretive military spy agency. This represents nothing less than a major change in American life – and unless stopped the consequences of this system for everybody will grow in magnitude along with the rivers of data that are collected about each of us – and that’s more and more every day. Some of the concerns include - Snip: * The erosion of privacy through the judicial creation of a distinction between content and "transactional" or "addressing" information (such as the recipients of e-mails or phone calls and the times and dates of each communication) through the Patriot Act and prior developments. * Partnerships between government agencies and private sector entities to collect and monitor customers’ data and transactions. The Return of Total Information Awareness by ACLU Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM PDT By Barry Steinhardt, director the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. Yesterday’s report in The Wall Street Journal about the NSA’s domestic spy dragnets should be major, major news. It is nothing less than the return of TIA: "Total Information Awareness." Yet there has been barely any followup coverage of the story in the mainstream media. I know the media thinks the sexual behavior of the governor of New York is earth-shatteringly important for American life – but this NSA report actually is. I mean, when we warn about a "surveillance society," this is what we’re talking about. This is it, this is the ballgame. Mass data from a wide variety of sources – including the private sector – is being collected and scanned by a secretive military spy agency. This represents nothing less than a major change in American life – and unless stopped the consequences of this system for everybody will grow in magnitude along with the rivers of data that are collected about each of us – and that’s more and more every day. The TIA program, you may recall, was a massive Pentagon plan (run by Admiral John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame) to tap into as many databases containing personal information about Americans as possible (program materials listed "Financial, Education, Travel, Medical, Veterinary, Country Entry, Place/Event Entry, Transportation, Housing, Critical Resources, Government, Communications"). All that information would then be pulled together and scanned for "suspicious" patterns. Given the density of the "data trails" that we all create in our daily lives today and in the future, it was a recipe for the routine surveillance of Americans and their every move. TIA was supposed to have been killed off by Congress in 2003 amid widespread objections to its sweeping Orwellian scope. There have been always been hints about a secret annex to the law that permitted some limited aspects of TIA to operate within the Pentagon’s black budget for intelligence and with respect to foreigners only. Now it appears that, like a vampire that can’t be killed except with a stake through its heart, TIA has arisen again from its coffin in full body with its voracious appetite for privacy of Americans and foreigners alike. The reporter on the Journal piece, Siobhan Gorman, describes stunning new spying capabilities that flow from a distributed collection of new domestic spying capabilities (each of which the ACLU has long warned against): * TIA and data mining more broadly * The NSA’s illegal wiretapping program, the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) * The Patriot Act’s broadening of FBI power to collect third-party personal information without a subpoena through Section 215 searches and National Security Letters. * The Treasury Department’s expanded surveillance of financial transactions through Cash Transaction Reporting and Suspicious Activity Reporting. * The CIA’s illegitimate access to the SWIFT database to monitor international financial transactions. * DHS’ efforts to increase collection and monitoring of airline passenger data. * Partnerships between government agencies and private sector entities to collect and monitor customers’ data and transactions. * The erosion of privacy through the judicial creation of a distinction between content and "transactional" or "addressing" information (such as the recipients of e-mails or phone calls and the times and dates of each communication) through the Patriot Act and prior developments. In the ongoing battle over FISA and the NSA’s warrantless spying program (which appears to be but one part of this larger effort), the government has been saying in effect, "trust us." Why should we trust an agency that has been running this secret program in contravention of the Wyden Amendment, the law passed by Congress shutting down TIA. It’s time for Congress to find out exactly what is going on here, inform the public, and put a stop to what appears to be the construction of a sweeping infrastructure for the routine mass surveillance of innocent people. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toeslist/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toeslist/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:toeslist-digest at yahoogroups.com mailto:toeslist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: toeslist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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/y7mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 13 06:39:30 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:39:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] ACLU - US - The Return of Total Information In-Reply-To: <860794.71462.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <860794.71462.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080313103930.GC11519@hserus.net> David Goldstein [13/03/08 02:35 -0700]: >There is a mountain in the United States whose name escapes me now,which >buried deep within has the most amazing facility for monitoringanything and >everything we do electronically. Cheyenne Mountain / NORAD. http://www.norad.mil Oh, they even track santa claus - http://www.noradsanta.org/ srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Mar 13 07:53:48 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:53:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I asked Markus yesterday on the MAG list about the process for rotation, what's expected next in terms of timeline etc. He replied to say the matter is out of his hands and could we be patient. He hopes for news from New York soon, but in the mean time it's never too early to start the process. Seems the MAG's suggestions from the last consultation are now with the secretary general's office -- not a surprise given the SG directed the MAG to propose a means of rotation that he'd then want to see the proposal before agreeing to it! So starting a process as Parminder's done is the right way forward. What can we learn from the process used in 2006 Perhaps begin by discussing criteria? Situation now's different from 2006, but anyway here's what was used then: "Criteria The criteria the IGC NomCom used were originally discussed on the Internet Governance caucus list and then discussed by the NomCom before making their selections. The basic criteria established before the first choices were made include: * Must be active civil society participants * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if possible * Should attempt to achieve gender balance * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and knowledge set, age, disability, etc. * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS updated on developments * Should be people who have shown ability to lobby governments in order to help achieve CS positions A working statement of the criteria is best expressed by a quote from one of the members of the NomCom: To that end, people we appoint should have a stated (and, I would hope, demonstrated) commitment to consultation and thoughtful dialogue with the community. We should seek a diversity of views and talents on the committee, but one constant should be good communication. This is more than participation on the list; it also includes listening, mediating,facilitating, trying to build consensus -- and, most importantly, being able to articulate the truly held views of others even when you disagree with them." (end) Rotation of a third means a couple of people, as we believe CS is under represented I hope we can also make the case for additional CS members, how we argue that will be important (I hope on the merits of civil society's contributions to WSIS and the IGF, as the largest group of participants at the meetings, and substantive contributors to workshops and other events, rather than arguing some other group has too many.) Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 13 09:00:11 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:30:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080313130015.9B881A6D0E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Adam >? I've given you my > understanding, Avri's given her's. And I added my doubts about how things stand. Again, if you want to know > something, as the caucus coordinator you're in an ideal position just > to ask the secretariat. Would be a good habit to get into rather > than continuing loops on this list. > And you seem for some reasons irritated about it. Don't know why? I don't want a MAG vacuum at any time. That's not right, nor good. But I am wondering how it would be this time, when we know there was such a vacuum last year. As for asking the secretariat as a co-coordinator, I appreciate your advice however ill-humouredly it is put. I was offering my views here in a personal capacity on an issue initiated by someone else. At this point I did not feel the urgency to find it out directly from the secretariat. Nor I have yet seen the requirement expressed on this list, for me to take it up on IGCs behalf with the secretariat. Anyways you as a MAG member are supposed to tell us such things, and also hold a conversation on the issue without getting irritated. And I may also advice you that this would a good habit to get into, at least towards the end of the membership period. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> > I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So > >> > the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. > >> > >> this is my understanding as well. > >> > >> a. > > > >We will like to believe it is so, but we know it wasn't so the last time > >around and there was a clear hiatus with no MAG. So how would it be so > this > >time without a clear authorization from the right quarters for it. Is > there > >anything of such nature? > > > perhaps you could ask for a definitive statement? I've given you my > understanding, Avri's given her's. > > > >I think I also heard Vianna and Nitin say that Vianna steps down after > the > >Feb MAG meeting. That looks like indicating non-automatic-continuity. > > > Because the host changes each year. Again, if you want to know > something, as the caucus coordinator you're in an ideal position just > to ask the secretariat. Would be a good habit to get into rather > than continuing loops on this list. > > Adam > > > > >Parminder > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:00 AM > >> To: Governance Caucus > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > >> > >> > >> On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> > I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So > >> > the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. > >> > >> this is my understanding as well. > >> > >> 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 avri at psg.com Thu Mar 13 09:34:16 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:34:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2CC4F337-6436-4075-B4AD-BB81458456E1@psg.com> Hi, Since the process is in the the UN Secretary General's hands, you are of course correct. There are no guarantees. Then again, when are there ever guarantees. I was just speaking of my personal understanding of what was currently the case. As far as I know, the current MAG is the MAG until it no longer is the MAG. a. On 13 Mar 2008, at 04:11, Parminder wrote: >> On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So >>> the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. >> >> this is my understanding as well. >> >> a. > > We will like to believe it is so, but we know it wasn't so the last > time > around and there was a clear hiatus with no MAG. So how would it be > so this > time without a clear authorization from the right quarters for it. > Is there > anything of such nature? > > I think I also heard Vianna and Nitin say that Vianna steps down > after the > Feb MAG meeting. That looks like indicating non-automatic-continuity. > > Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:00 AM >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG >> >> >> On 13 Mar 2008, at 00:34, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> I am pretty sure members continue as members until rotated out. So >>> the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is formed. >> >> this is my understanding as well. >> >> 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 Thu Mar 13 09:43:00 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:43:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080313130015.9B881A6D0E@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080313130015.9B881A6D0E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <4F41415B-EB65-416D-889C-B64886721E6C@psg.com> On 13 Mar 2008, at 09:00, Parminder wrote: > Anyways you as a MAG member are supposed to tell us such things, and > also > hold a conversation on the issue without getting irritated. actually, i wonder, was he irritated, or did you just judge him to be irritated. and are you irritated due to yur your perception of him being irritated? and i wonder if anyone is ever supposed to do something without getting irritated? or is implacability one of the CS criteria for MAGhood. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 13 10:06:32 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:36:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <4F41415B-EB65-416D-889C-B64886721E6C@psg.com> References: <20080313130015.9B881A6D0E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <4F41415B-EB65-416D-889C-B64886721E6C@psg.com> Message-ID: <01d601c88513$72544fa0$56fceee0$@net> > actually, i wonder, was he irritated, or did you just judge him to be > irritated. and are you irritated due to yur your perception of him being irritated? > > and i wonder if anyone is ever supposed to do something without > getting irritated? .. and does Avri asking you this irritate you .. Learn to relax a bit, pappaji. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Mar 13 11:28:04 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47D94804.9080702@wzb.eu> >> > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non-compatibility, >> > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later > renamed IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were > made. I went through those archives about 10 years ago and found them very interesting. > >> Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or impossible? There were several competing proposals. I once wrote a paper about this discussion. If you are interested: http://duplox.wzb.eu/final/jeanette.htm jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Mar 13 12:25:14 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (DRAKE William) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:25:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47D9556A.7030904@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Adam, Adam Peake wrote: > Rotation of a third means a couple of people So re: Vittorio's question earlier today about whether the 1/3 shouldn't be annual retroactively, meaning 2/3 this time, the expectation is that no, it'll only be 1/3 going forward, presumably because of the specialized skill sets needed to select main session speakers, ascertain that workshop proposals are multistakeholder, etc, which require years of experience to develop? So some people will be on the MAG for a minimum of four years, perhaps more if the rule is that one must volunteer to leave? Just trying to understand... > The criteria the IGC NomCom used were originally discussed on the > Internet Governance caucus list and then discussed by the NomCom before > making their selections. > > The basic criteria established before the first choices were made include: > > * Must be active civil society participants > * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if > possible > * Should attempt to achieve gender balance > * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and > knowledge set, age, disability, etc. > * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS > updated on developments > * Should be people who have shown ability to lobby governments in > order to help achieve CS positions To these one might add: *On the first point, active in IG processes per se, preferably in the caucus. People not active in the caucus seem rather unlikely to feel a responsibilitz to keep the caucus updated on developments, and can and probably will be nominated by other entitites. *Ability and commitment to actually showing up for MAG meetings and participating on the list--empty chairs, physical or virtual, don't do a lot of good, particularly given the underrepresentation. *Never having vocally advocated any positions that might have been perceived to be 'controversial' in some unstated manner by some unnamed group deemded to be more important, since such offenders probably wouldn't be selected even with assurances of role/shape shifting capacities (a CS-specific rule). These criteria, if followed, would suggest that we cannot take the path of least resistence and simply resubmit the names previously agreed but that were not selected last time. So we just need to identify 2-3 new, active, diverse, travel-enabled saints from the IGC. Piece of cake! Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Mar 13 12:30:21 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:30:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] 'US seizes domain name of Spanish company Message-ID: Bret, You're right to say in some sense it's nothing new, except you don't need gunboats to enforce your laws across virtual seas. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bfausett at internet.law.pro 03/12/08 12:19 PM >>> Several comments, one email. See below. Ian Peter wrote: > Can Anyone shed any light on this?? Check the archives of this list. We discussed this last week also (see "a wave of the watch list") Carlos Afonso wrote: > There is a lot more. It seems the list of blacklisted domains > related to Cuba (or the Cuba theme) is quite extensive. More details of the sanctions program is here: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/ascii/cuba.txt What's also worth mentioning is that any U.S.-based company can seek a license from the U.S. to engage in business transactions with companies on the list. Lee McKnight wrote: > As this thread suggests, the Internet has a levelling effect as now > all nations can seek (and may feel they have cause to) apply laws > extraterritorially. Perhaps the effects are different, but haven't nations always been able to use trade as a lever to apply their policy judgments extraterritorially? The U.S. OFAC site makes the case that U.S. trade embargoes go back to the War of 1812. * * * I keep coming to the conclusion that there's an IGF session in all this. Lessons learned can be: (1) if you want to be free from the judgments of other nations, register in your ccTLD. (2) for gTLDs, understand that your choice of registrar, and the registration contract to which you agree, has implications about what laws will govern your relationship to your domain name. (3) same as (2) for any web host or email provider. -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Mar 13 13:57:53 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:57:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47D9556A.7030904@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D9556A.7030904@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: >Hi Adam, > >Adam Peake wrote: > >> Rotation of a third means a couple of people > >So re: Vittorio's question earlier today about whether the 1/3 >shouldn't be annual retroactively, meaning 2/3 this time, the >expectation is that no, it'll only be 1/3 going forward, Correct, a third going forward. >presumably because of the specialized skill sets needed to select >main session speakers, ascertain that workshop proposals are >multistakeholder, etc, which require years of experience to develop? >So some people will be on the MAG for a minimum of four years, Hopefully longer, job for life. Highly skilled, highly paid, highly respected :-) >perhaps more if the rule is that one must volunteer to leave? There is no rule about volunteering to leave. A third will rotate out (I doubt people will be cut into pieces to make this mathematically possible, so the third should be understood to be approximate.) > Just trying to understand... > >>The criteria the IGC NomCom used were originally discussed on the >>Internet Governance caucus list and then discussed by the NomCom >>before making their selections. >> >>The basic criteria established before the first choices were made include: >> >> * Must be active civil society participants >> * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions >>if possible >> * Should attempt to achieve gender balance >> * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill >>and knowledge set, age, disability, etc. >> * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS >>updated on developments >> * Should be people who have shown ability to lobby governments >>in order to help achieve CS positions > >To these one might add: > >*On the first point, active in IG processes per se, preferably in >the caucus. People not active in the caucus seem rather unlikely to >feel a responsibilitz to keep the caucus updated on developments, >and can and probably will be nominated by other entitites. OK (noting the caucus does not represent all of civil society, shouldn't be too upset if its recommendations are ignored.) >*Ability and commitment to actually showing up for MAG meetings and >participating on the list--empty chairs, physical or virtual, don't >do a lot of good, particularly given the underrepresentation. OK. Hopefully there will be funding for developing nation members, but this is only rumor. Doubt there would be any support for civil society members from developing countries, but people do participate remotely. >*Never having vocally advocated any positions that might have been >perceived to be 'controversial' in some unstated manner by some >unnamed group deemded to be more important, since such offenders >probably wouldn't be selected even with assurances of role/shape >shifting capacities (a CS-specific rule). That's a bit mean (Parminder, I'm still not irritated... ) >These criteria, if followed, would suggest that we cannot take the >path of least resistence and simply resubmit the names previously >agreed but that were not selected last time. So we just need to >identify 2-3 new, active, diverse, travel-enabled saints from the >IGC. Piece of cake! I'm sure we'll manage. Adam >Cheers, > >Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Mar 13 15:54:50 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:54:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam, On 3/13/08 6:57 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: >> *Never having vocally advocated any positions that might have been >> perceived to be 'controversial' in some unstated manner by some >> unnamed group deemded to be more important, since such offenders >> probably wouldn't be selected even with assurances of role/shape >> shifting capacities (a CS-specific rule). > > > That's a bit mean (Parminder, I'm still not irritated... ) You may have missed my meaning, which was neither mean nor about one person. Please look again at the list in relation to all the criteria mentioned. http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html thanks, 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 ca at rits.org.br Thu Mar 13 16:19:49 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:19:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <47D98C65.2090107@rits.org.br> Precisely because of Vittorio's questions I think the SG would be much more comfortable with dismissing everyone and then picking 2/3 to stay, if this is really going to be the rotation rule. Unless more than 1/3 do inform him that they are willing to be replaced, and hopefully in a balanced manner regarding the stakeholder groups. Hardly. Frankly, it would be awful for the SG to receive a bunch of pleas in the style "I am the greatest, please keep me in", or " it would be so sad to leave such a nice group of folks" and so on, and, since most would not send a "yes, my place is at your disposal, sir", then have to sit and decide "no cookies for you anymore, Geraldo", and "yes, Virginia, I will let you continue" etc. It is far more reasonable (and ethically coherent, less troublesome) for the SG to dismiss everyone and reorganize following the 1/3 + 2/3 rule. For several reasons, I hope he does so. Let us therefore concentrate on how to arrive at a list of CS names for that 1/3. In this aspect, please note that the Latin American and Caribbean WSIS caucus is trying to prepare a list of names to recommend on behalf of the region. Any news regarding the other regions? []s fraternos --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Adam Peake ha scritto: >>> I think we should follow some basic guidelines: >>> >>> 1. Rotation would be for 1/3 of the MAG (I guess this means the whole >>> MAG and not only the 50% non-gov people). >> >> >> "Rotating up to 1/3 of the members within each stakeholder group each >> year was seen as the appropriate way forward." and "50% of its >> members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, >> would be maintained. > > So, who gets to pick which members of the MAG are confirmed and which > ones are subject to reconfirming? What happens if you have to rotate one > third of the group but almost everyone in the group wants to continue? > I've seen a commitment to rotate "up to one third" (which might mean no > rotation at all) but I've not seen commitments to rotate "at least X%". > > Frankly, I would think that rotating less than one third would be a > joke. There was no rotation last year, so if you have ascertained that > the right proportion of rotation is one third per year (which is already > pretty low), one would expect that this year two thirds of the group > would be rotated. Generally speaking, a group deciding for itself which > and how many of its members need to be changed at the term's end, and > deciding for very low values, does not look very good. > > Please don't be offended - I know that everyone's intentions are good, > that establishing proper procedures in this informal environment is > hard, that there is the need to cope with balancing constraints etc. - > but the accountability and transparency of the MAG is still low, more > than that of the governing bodies of other global Internet governance > institutions. This is somewhat normal for such a young organization, but > perhaps some stronger show of will and bolder effort could be done: from > the outside, it really looks like the MAG is reluctant to change and > plans to replace as few members as possible, and this is not encouraging > for the credibility of the IGF. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Mar 13 16:33:47 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:33:47 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <47D94804.9080702@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <036b01c88549$92b93fe0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Great paper Jeanette, thanks for posting the link. Lots of issues still current in this analysis! 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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: 14 March 2008 02:28 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > > > > >> > > Were these gains evaluated against the losses of non- > compatibility, > >> > > or non-seamless-compatibility. > > > > Probably, you will have to read the history of IETFs IPng (later > > renamed IPv6) WG, as I wasn't on that list when those choices were > > made. > > I went through those archives about 10 years ago and found them very > interesting. > > > > >> Why there was no other proposal. Is it technically difficult or > impossible? > > There were several competing proposals. > I once wrote a paper about this discussion. If you are interested: > > http://duplox.wzb.eu/final/jeanette.htm > > > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1328 - Release Date: > 13/03/2008 11:31 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1328 - Release Date: 13/03/2008 11:31 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Mar 13 16:59:20 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:59:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The obvious subtext of the recent list messages on this issue is that we have many capable members of the caucus who are eager to serve on the Multistakeholder Advisory Group and current members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group who all appear to want to continue their service. Having more volunteers than available positions is a good problem to have. As someone who is *not* able or willing to serve on the MAG this year -- a disclosure I make so no one thinks I'm trying to insert myself onto the MAG -- current members of the MAG should let us know whether they wish to continue service or not for the coming year. (Some have already, some have not.) If two or three people step down voluntarily, we can then think about which persons can replace them. If no one wishes to voluntarily step down, then we should agree on a mechanism for randomly selecting which seats expire now, which expire next year, and which expire the year after. -- Bret -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html ------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Mar 13 18:01:41 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:01:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D9A445.40600@wzb.eu> Bret Fausett wrote: > The obvious subtext of the recent list messages on this issue is that we > have many capable members of the caucus who are eager to serve on the > Multistakeholder Advisory Group and current members of the > Multistakeholder Advisory Group who all appear to want to continue their > service. Having more volunteers than available positions is a good > problem to have. > > As someone who is *not* able or willing to serve on the MAG this year -- > a disclosure I make so no one thinks I'm trying to insert myself onto > the MAG -- current members of the MAG should let us know whether they > wish to continue service or not for the coming year. I would like to continue but if I had to choose between Adam and me, I would support Adam. jeanette (Some have already, > some have not.) If two or three people step down voluntarily, we can > then think about which persons can replace them. If no one wishes to > voluntarily step down, then we should agree on a mechanism for randomly > selecting which seats expire now, which expire next year, and which > expire the year after. > > -- Bret > > -- > Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") > smime.p7s is a digital signature > http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html > ------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Mar 14 01:03:55 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:03:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47D9556A.7030904@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <20080313081121.50B55E0586@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D9556A.7030904@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <0899167A-7F7C-4707-B004-2DCA3B9FDFF4@Malcolm.id.au> On 14/03/2008, at 1:25 AM, DRAKE William wrote: > These criteria, if followed, would suggest that we cannot take the > path of least resistence and simply resubmit the names previously > agreed but that were not selected last time. So we just need to > identify 2-3 new, active, diverse, travel-enabled saints from the > IGC. Piece of cake! Actually I think is is only reasonable for the Advisory Group to start to admit those who don't have the resources to jet off to Geneva, but who can attend the in-person meetings through the wonders of a 1970s technology called teleconferencing (or even VoIP if we want to get fancy). -- 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}' Luxury Perth apartment for sale! http://www.yourestate.com.au/sresult.php?property_id=8581 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 14 10:11:22 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:11:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > from > the outside, it really looks like the MAG is reluctant to change and > plans to replace as few members as possible, and this is not encouraging > for the credibility of the IGF. Well said, Vittorio. It is really important that the IGF NOT get stuck in the same self-perpetuating group. For that reason, I think it is incumbent upon ALL of the members nominated by civil society via this caucus to express their willingness to step down and be replaced by someone new. At the very least, the current crop of CS "delegates" should be able to decide among themselves which of the 6 or 7 should be replaced. And that proportion should NOT be limited to one third, which after all is only 2.15 people. We could in fact take a stand and offer to replace 2/3 or one half. Why not? Can someone -- especially someone currently on the MAG -- give me one reason we should not? It is more than the credibility of the IGF that is at stake, it is the institutional capacity of IGF itself. An organization that does not know how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by definition moribund or worse, corrupt. It is the most basic task that an organization is supposed to be able to do. And given the tasks of the MAG, which are entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the case for high levels of continuity is quite weak. People like Adam and Jeanette who were strong contributors to MAG, for example, can remain major players in IGF whether or hot they are on the MAG. Or even if they stay, one or two incumbents is sufficient. But precisely because they are stronger members they should be the first to volunteer to be rotated. I am really sorry to have to say this less politely than Vittorio, but if the people who are currently on the MAG liked being in that position, I sympathize with you, I understand you, but I also say, get over it. Think about something higher than your own personal enjoyment and recognition. Think about the long-term future of IGF and civil society participation in IG. The key issue to consider is whether participation on the MAG is a purely personal form of recognition and engagement, or whether you are there to represent something larger - either a constituency or a set of ideals. All this crazy, strategically suspect talk about people not representing anyone or anything to the contrary, I would suggest that if someone who wants to be on the MAG does not represent a constituency or a point of view that transcends themselves they have absolutely no business being on the MAG. This is not about who gets invited to a cocktail party, it's supposed to be about internet governance policy. I must also express disagreement with Meryem about not using the IGC to nominate CS representatives on the MAG. It seems to me to be essential that civil society use the only (quasi) universalistic organizational mechanism it has to hash this out. Of course we know that other clusters of actors can -- and will -- approach the UN and IGF Secretariat with their own nominees. But IGC at least can make a credible claim to have consulted a community and to have an unpredetermined outcome, so its nominees have more legitimacy. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Mar 14 10:35:48 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:35:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Message-ID: Milton, Vitttorio, I agree it iis important for IGC to establish a policy on rotation of 'igc' MAG members and regular procedures for new nominations. I disagree that we should start the new policy with an exception to the 1/3rd off principle which wll be followed by governments.We need to be looking beyond this first rotation to the ongoing operation of IGF, Parminder should set our practices on the assumption that this will be an annual practice,so who's on and who's off for 08-09 is not that big a deal in the long run. But setting up a fair process for determiining that, that is a big deal. Avri's early efforts for nomcoms and elections got us started right, let's build on that. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> mueller at syr.edu 03/14/08 10:11 AM >>> > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > from > the outside, it really looks like the MAG is reluctant to change and > plans to replace as few members as possible, and this is not encouraging > for the credibility of the IGF. Well said, Vittorio. It is really important that the IGF NOT get stuck in the same self-perpetuating group. For that reason, I think it is incumbent upon ALL of the members nominated by civil society via this caucus to express their willingness to step down and be replaced by someone new. At the very least, the current crop of CS "delegates" should be able to decide among themselves which of the 6 or 7 should be replaced. And that proportion should NOT be limited to one third, which after all is only 2.15 people. We could in fact take a stand and offer to replace 2/3 or one half. Why not? Can someone -- especially someone currently on the MAG -- give me one reason we should not? It is more than the credibility of the IGF that is at stake, it is the institutional capacity of IGF itself. An organization that does not know how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by definition moribund or worse, corrupt. It is the most basic task that an organization is supposed to be able to do. And given the tasks of the MAG, which are entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the case for high levels of continuity is quite weak. People like Adam and Jeanette who were strong contributors to MAG, for example, can remain major players in IGF whether or hot they are on the MAG. Or even if they stay, one or two incumbents is sufficient. But precisely because they are stronger members they should be the first to volunteer to be rotated. I am really sorry to have to say this less politely than Vittorio, but if the people who are currently on the MAG liked being in that position, I sympathize with you, I understand you, but I also say, get over it. Think about something higher than your own personal enjoyment and recognition. Think about the long-term future of IGF and civil society participation in IG. The key issue to consider is whether participation on the MAG is a purely personal form of recognition and engagement, or whether you are there to represent something larger - either a constituency or a set of ideals. All this crazy, strategically suspect talk about people not representing anyone or anything to the contrary, I would suggest that if someone who wants to be on the MAG does not represent a constituency or a point of view that transcends themselves they have absolutely no business being on the MAG. This is not about who gets invited to a cocktail party, it's supposed to be about internet governance policy. I must also express disagreement with Meryem about not using the IGC to nominate CS representatives on the MAG. It seems to me to be essential that civil society use the only (quasi) universalistic organizational mechanism it has to hash this out. Of course we know that other clusters of actors can -- and will -- approach the UN and IGF Secretariat with their own nominees. But IGC at least can make a credible claim to have consulted a community and to have an unpredetermined outcome, so its nominees have more legitimacy. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 14 10:52:42 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:52:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080314145242.GA7539@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [14/03/08 10:11 -0400]: >institutional capacity of IGF itself. An organization that does not know >how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by >definition moribund or worse, corrupt. It is the most basic task that an APIA (www.apia.org) is the steering committee for the apricot network operators conference - asiapac equivalent of nanog That steering committee has changed very little (maybe added two people, dropped one) over a period of 5 years now. And I know first hand the amount of work each of those committee members puts in, between conferences. Self perpetuating is perfectly fine as long as you have competent people who are willing to work. Much better than people who are willing to talk. Or to play politics. Or to claim representation for the sake of representation. Call it a meritocracy. Or the old socialist ideal of working to rule. 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 avri at psg.com Fri Mar 14 10:57:02 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:57:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7FF8A36F-3153-48DD-B5E1-4CC3C768CF62@psg.com> Hi, On 14 Mar 2008, at 10:35, Lee McKnight wrote: > But setting up a fair process for determiining that, that is a big > deal. > Avri's early efforts for nomcoms and elections got us started right, > let's build on that. - as i am most certainly am not going to be either a member of any nomcom or a candidate for MAGification, I offer the same help as in the past to get such a group started. As I remember the first task is for the caucus to find a volunteer to chair the nomcom who does not plan to be a candidate. 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Fri Mar 14 10:54:29 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:54:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47DA91A5.6010109@panos-ao.org> Dear all About the reconstitution of the MAG: I think I can still be useful in the MAG but since there is a need for some rotation, I'm of course ready to be replaced if we decide to do so. Regards Ken Lohento ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Mar 14 12:13:56 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:13:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DAA444.7000705@rits.org.br> I disagree it is a principle. It was the suggestion most seemed to be satisfied with, but the howtos were not detailed, and of course the SG might change this. Let us note that the MAG could not even agree it will not challenge the 50% rule, as we can see in the most recent messages in the igf-members list on the subject -- which also show there is doubt on any rotation principle which will be de facto adopted by the SG. I suggest CS people as a block, quits, independently of what the SG does (and he will do whatever is less troublesome for him without breaking rules -- and the 1/3 thing is not a rule nor a principle), and opens up the space for indications of CS reps to the MAG trying to make sure there is a better balance in regional + gender + etc representation. The ones who want to stay would put their names again on the block for discussion, and the constituency should of course consider this, but we could very well propose that more or less than 1/3 be replaced. If we replace, in the suggested process above, none, one third of the six-seven, or half, or 3/4, it is far less relevant than making sure we have a full list of names which might represent a better CS consensus. If anything, CS in the MAG was far worse in coordinating itself than the other non-gov stakeholders, so, I think we all need an opportunity to restate our presence, and this is it (although it seems time is quite short). --c.a. Lee McKnight wrote: > Milton, Vitttorio, > > I agree it iis important for IGC to establish a policy on rotation of > 'igc' MAG members and regular procedures for new nominations. > > I disagree that we should start the new policy with an exception to the > 1/3rd off principle which wll be followed by governments.We need to be > looking beyond this first rotation to the ongoing operation of IGF, > Parminder should set our practices on the assumption that this will be > an annual practice,so who's on and who's off for 08-09 is not that big a > deal in the long run. > > But setting up a fair process for determiining that, that is a big deal. > Avri's early efforts for nomcoms and elections got us started right, > let's build on that. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> mueller at syr.edu 03/14/08 10:11 AM >>> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >> from >> the outside, it really looks like the MAG is reluctant to change and >> plans to replace as few members as possible, and this is not > encouraging >> for the credibility of the IGF. > > Well said, Vittorio. It is really important that the IGF NOT get stuck > in the same self-perpetuating group. For that reason, I think it is > incumbent upon ALL of the members nominated by civil society via this > caucus to express their willingness to step down and be replaced by > someone new. At the very least, the current crop of CS "delegates" > should be able to decide among themselves which of the 6 or 7 should be > replaced. And that proportion should NOT be limited to one third, which > after all is only 2.15 people. We could in fact take a stand and offer > to replace 2/3 or one half. Why not? Can someone -- especially someone > currently on the MAG -- give me one reason we should not? > > It is more than the credibility of the IGF that is at stake, it is the > institutional capacity of IGF itself. An organization that does not know > how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by > definition moribund or worse, corrupt. It is the most basic task that an > organization is supposed to be able to do. And given the tasks of the > MAG, which are entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the > case for high levels of continuity is quite weak. People like Adam and > Jeanette who were strong contributors to MAG, for example, can remain > major players in IGF whether or hot they are on the MAG. Or even if they > stay, one or two incumbents is sufficient. But precisely because they > are stronger members they should be the first to volunteer to be > rotated. > > I am really sorry to have to say this less politely than Vittorio, but > if the people who are currently on the MAG liked being in that position, > I sympathize with you, I understand you, but I also say, get over it. > Think about something higher than your own personal enjoyment and > recognition. Think about the long-term future of IGF and civil society > participation in IG. > > The key issue to consider is whether participation on the MAG is a > purely personal form of recognition and engagement, or whether you are > there to represent something larger - either a constituency or a set of > ideals. All this crazy, strategically suspect talk about people not > representing anyone or anything to the contrary, I would suggest that if > someone who wants to be on the MAG does not represent a constituency or > a point of view that transcends themselves they have absolutely no > business being on the MAG. This is not about who gets invited to a > cocktail party, it's supposed to be about internet governance policy. > > I must also express disagreement with Meryem about not using the IGC to > nominate CS representatives on the MAG. It seems to me to be essential > that civil society use the only (quasi) universalistic organizational > mechanism it has to hash this out. Of course we know that other clusters > of actors can -- and will -- approach the UN and IGF Secretariat with > their own nominees. But IGC at least can make a credible claim to have > consulted a community and to have an unpredetermined outcome, so its > nominees have more legitimacy. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Mar 14 13:25:36 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:25:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Message-ID: I note Avri's offer to fire up a nomcom etc process, doesn't that make sense for getting process going asap. Practically speaking all current mag members are off for the next round unless and until the SG reappoints them, so kind of a moot point whether they tender resignations or not, isn't it? Let's pass it to a nomcom asap and let them take the heat and sort it out. Of course that might all seem too practical and and out of character for the caucus to proceed like that : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ca at rits.org.br 03/14/08 12:13 PM >>> I disagree it is a principle. It was the suggestion most seemed to be satisfied with, but the howtos were not detailed, and of course the SG might change this. Let us note that the MAG could not even agree it will not challenge the 50% rule, as we can see in the most recent messages in the igf-members list on the subject -- which also show there is doubt on any rotation principle which will be de facto adopted by the SG. I suggest CS people as a block, quits, independently of what the SG does (and he will do whatever is less troublesome for him without breaking rules -- and the 1/3 thing is not a rule nor a principle), and opens up the space for indications of CS reps to the MAG trying to make sure there is a better balance in regional + gender + etc representation. The ones who want to stay would put their names again on the block for discussion, and the constituency should of course consider this, but we could very well propose that more or less than 1/3 be replaced. If we replace, in the suggested process above, none, one third of the six-seven, or half, or 3/4, it is far less relevant than making sure we have a full list of names which might represent a better CS consensus. If anything, CS in the MAG was far worse in coordinating itself than the other non-gov stakeholders, so, I think we all need an opportunity to restate our presence, and this is it (although it seems time is quite short). --c.a. Lee McKnight wrote: > Milton, Vitttorio, > > I agree it iis important for IGC to establish a policy on rotation of > 'igc' MAG members and regular procedures for new nominations. > > I disagree that we should start the new policy with an exception to the > 1/3rd off principle which wll be followed by governments.We need to be > looking beyond this first rotation to the ongoing operation of IGF, > Parminder should set our practices on the assumption that this will be > an annual practice,so who's on and who's off for 08-09 is not that big a > deal in the long run. > > But setting up a fair process for determiining that, that is a big deal. > Avri's early efforts for nomcoms and elections got us started right, > let's build on that. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> mueller at syr.edu 03/14/08 10:11 AM >>> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >> from >> the outside, it really looks like the MAG is reluctant to change and >> plans to replace as few members as possible, and this is not > encouraging >> for the credibility of the IGF. > > Well said, Vittorio. It is really important that the IGF NOT get stuck > in the same self-perpetuating group. For that reason, I think it is > incumbent upon ALL of the members nominated by civil society via this > caucus to express their willingness to step down and be replaced by > someone new. At the very least, the current crop of CS "delegates" > should be able to decide among themselves which of the 6 or 7 should be > replaced. And that proportion should NOT be limited to one third, which > after all is only 2.15 people. We could in fact take a stand and offer > to replace 2/3 or one half. Why not? Can someone -- especially someone > currently on the MAG -- give me one reason we should not? > > It is more than the credibility of the IGF that is at stake, it is the > institutional capacity of IGF itself. An organization that does not know > how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by > definition moribund or worse, corrupt. It is the most basic task that an > organization is supposed to be able to do. And given the tasks of the > MAG, which are entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the > case for high levels of continuity is quite weak. People like Adam and > Jeanette who were strong contributors to MAG, for example, can remain > major players in IGF whether or hot they are on the MAG. Or even if they > stay, one or two incumbents is sufficient. But precisely because they > are stronger members they should be the first to volunteer to be > rotated. > > I am really sorry to have to say this less politely than Vittorio, but > if the people who are currently on the MAG liked being in that position, > I sympathize with you, I understand you, but I also say, get over it. > Think about something higher than your own personal enjoyment and > recognition. Think about the long-term future of IGF and civil society > participation in IG. > > The key issue to consider is whether participation on the MAG is a > purely personal form of recognition and engagement, or whether you are > there to represent something larger - either a constituency or a set of > ideals. All this crazy, strategically suspect talk about people not > representing anyone or anything to the contrary, I would suggest that if > someone who wants to be on the MAG does not represent a constituency or > a point of view that transcends themselves they have absolutely no > business being on the MAG. This is not about who gets invited to a > cocktail party, it's supposed to be about internet governance policy. > > I must also express disagreement with Meryem about not using the IGC to > nominate CS representatives on the MAG. It seems to me to be essential > that civil society use the only (quasi) universalistic organizational > mechanism it has to hash this out. Of course we know that other clusters > of actors can -- and will -- approach the UN and IGF Secretariat with > their own nominees. But IGC at least can make a credible claim to have > consulted a community and to have an unpredetermined outcome, so its > nominees have more legitimacy. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Mar 14 13:44:06 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:44:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> Lee McKnight ha scritto: > I note Avri's offer to fire up a nomcom etc process, doesn't that make > sense for getting process going asap. Practically speaking all current > mag members are off for the next round unless and until the SG > reappoints them, so kind of a moot point whether they tender > resignations or not, isn't it? Let's pass it to a nomcom asap and let > them take the heat and sort it out. > > Of course that might all seem too practical and and out of character for > the caucus to proceed like that : ) I don't know whether the current CS members of the MAG are already planning to pick two among themselves and tell the caucus "these are the two ones that will be thrown to the lions, all the others are safe"; it's certainly hard to imagine. It's also true that the "up to 1/3" principle is not binding in any way, so if CS wanted to recommend that all seven rotate, it could certainly do so - at most, it would be the Secretary General to refuse to do that, if he thinks that continuity is more important than self-determination. So, perhaps we could just work out a process for selection - a Nomcom, if I remember well from the charter - with the mandate to select the best possible slate, considering both the advantages of continuity and the advantages of rotation, and it will be up to this process to determine whether no one rotates, everyone rotates, or something in the middle. -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Mar 14 13:54:32 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:54:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Message-ID: sounds like a plan Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> vb at bertola.eu 03/14/08 1:44 PM >>> Lee McKnight ha scritto: > I note Avri's offer to fire up a nomcom etc process, doesn't that make > sense for getting process going asap. Practically speaking all current > mag members are off for the next round unless and until the SG > reappoints them, so kind of a moot point whether they tender > resignations or not, isn't it? Let's pass it to a nomcom asap and let > them take the heat and sort it out. > > Of course that might all seem too practical and and out of character for > the caucus to proceed like that : ) I don't know whether the current CS members of the MAG are already planning to pick two among themselves and tell the caucus "these are the two ones that will be thrown to the lions, all the others are safe"; it's certainly hard to imagine. It's also true that the "up to 1/3" principle is not binding in any way, so if CS wanted to recommend that all seven rotate, it could certainly do so - at most, it would be the Secretary General to refuse to do that, if he thinks that continuity is more important than self-determination. So, perhaps we could just work out a process for selection - a Nomcom, if I remember well from the charter - with the mandate to select the best possible slate, considering both the advantages of continuity and the advantages of rotation, and it will be up to this process to determine whether no one rotates, everyone rotates, or something in the middle. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Mar 14 20:21:40 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:21:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20080315002140.GB18346@hserus.net> Vittorio Bertola [14/03/08 18:44 +0100]: > So, perhaps we could just work out a process for selection - a Nomcom, if I > remember well from the charter - with the mandate to select the best > possible slate, considering both the advantages of continuity and the > advantages of rotation, and it will be up to this process to determine > whether no one rotates, everyone rotates, or something in the middle. Agreed. 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 14 20:36:22 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:36:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Le 14 mars 08 à 15:11, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > It is more than the credibility of the IGF that is at stake, it is the > institutional capacity of IGF itself. An organization that does not > know > how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by > definition moribund or worse, corrupt. Especially when it has specifically been asked by the UN SG to: "enhance the transparency of the preparatory process by ensuring a continuous flow of information between its members and the various interested groups. It has also been requested to make proposals on a suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations from the various interested groups." (press release of 20 August 2007: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm). If I were the UN SG, I wouldn't find suitable what the MAG proposed: "It was understood that any decision on how to proceed would be left to the Secretary-General and that any list of candidates would include the current MAG members who wished to continue. One of the criteria passed on to the Secretary-General would be the need for continuity and the request that approximately 2/3 of the members of the current group be carried over into the new group." (Summary of MAG meeting of 27-28 February 2008, para 9: http:// www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v2.pdf) BTW, the UN SG asked that proposals on rotation be made by MAG members, "based on recommendations from the various interested groups". Have I missed such a discussion initiated on this list by CS MAG members nominated by the IGC and a synthesis of recommendations from this list - one of the "various interested groups" - BEFORE the last MAG meeting? Or is it that the UN SG simply had a dream of democratic process? > The key issue to consider is whether participation on the MAG is a > purely personal form of recognition and engagement, or whether you are > there to represent something larger - either a constituency or a > set of > ideals. All this crazy, strategically suspect talk about people not > representing anyone or anything to the contrary, I would suggest > that if > someone who wants to be on the MAG does not represent a > constituency or > a point of view that transcends themselves they have absolutely no > business being on the MAG. This is not about who gets invited to a > cocktail party, it's supposed to be about internet governance policy. Well said, Milton, but you should get back to reality. And this reality is that: "The 47 Advisory Group members will serve in their personal capacity" (press release of 20 August 2007, see URL above). Not only the UN SG's dreams are limited, but MAG members keep telling us the same thing, including CS MAG members suggested by the IGC. This is exactly the reason why I asked for a preliminary discussion on the relevance of any nomination by the IGC. > I must also express disagreement with Meryem about not using the > IGC to > nominate CS representatives on the MAG. You disagree, but at least you react and don't play the inertia game: this is much appreciated. I'm amazed at how so many people here seem ready to enter again a process without even willing to discuss its relevance, inter alia by assessing its first step, taking into account the experience so far. Some may genuinely think that what I'm saying is "not constructive" or even "destructive". But what is destructive - far beyond this group, to CS at large - is to go on with such a perverted process. > It seems to me to be essential > that civil society use the only (quasi) universalistic organizational > mechanism it has to hash this out. What for? We have some experience with a first nomination process (http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html). The IGC has received 27 nominations (names, endorsements, bios, "why they are a good choice for the MAG", and "capacity to serve on MAG" may be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml). The IGC then selected 15 persons as its nominees (through a nomcom process), among them 5 were selected (note that I'm comfortable with this 5 out of 15 selected persons: other CS constituencies nominated other persons, and the UN SG had to take this into account). When have we seen these 5 MAG members consult the group that nominated them, and to which extent have they consulted (let aside some very practical ideas sollicitated almost only by one of them). When have we got any sound information or hints on what's going on in the MAG? I would agree with you that this is essential, if only some minimal democratic principles were respected. > Of course we know that other clusters > of actors can -- and will -- approach the UN and IGF Secretariat with > their own nominees. Yes, and that's normal and highly desirable, but only under normal conditions. e.g. Carlos already said that the LAC caucus will propose its own nominees: this is good and I hope other caucuses/networks/ coalitions/organizations will do the same. > But IGC at least can make a credible claim to have > consulted a community and to have an unpredetermined outcome, so its > nominees have more legitimacy. First of all, that's not what happens in practice: in the end, the UN SG makes his own selection, and we have seen that he selected 5 persons from among the IGC nominees. 5 out of how many CS MAG members? Secondly: again, what for, in the end? What will rather happen is that selected MAG members among IGC nominees will be able to claim that they have this credibility and thus this legitimacy, and have another round of MAG membership "in personal capacity, not representing anyone nor anything". That's where the process is perverted, both the IGC nomination and the IGF MAG process. I'm not attacking any individual here. But how may one call a process where: a group nominates its representatives without giving them any mandate nor any minimal transparency and accountability requirement; accepts that these representatives are acting all of a sudden in their individual capacity; accepts that these representatives don't give them the least sense of what's going on inside the MAG; and accepts that these representatives don't even affect to come back with some accounting of what they have done and, on top of this, dare to say that they would like to stay in place? And how may one call such a group? A CS caucus? Not! Why legitimating such a process? To delegitimate CS? If we want to have any chance to stop this perverted process, we have to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course including those who have already been on the MAG 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote within the MAG 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the candidate has done so far 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of the IGC. 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. And, most probably, get back to IGC charter and think twice about this provision: "All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom- process.html.", asking ourselves why coordinators must be elected, while nominees are only selected through a nomcom process, and in addition asking ourselves which of the two processes is more suitable for selecting IGC nominees if we want them be our representatives. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 15 01:19:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:49:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <4F41415B-EB65-416D-889C-B64886721E6C@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080315052003.38F206782D@smtp1.electricembers.net> Avri > > Anyways you as a MAG member are supposed to tell us such things, and > > also hold a conversation on the issue without getting irritated. > > > actually, i wonder, was he irritated, or did you just judge him to be > irritated. > and are you irritated due to yur your perception of him being irritated? I think I had good reasons to take objection to the manner Adam wrote that email... >>> Would be a good habit to get into rather >>> than continuing loops on this list. There were no continuing loops. That was my first posting on a subject raised by someone else. I take this as an avoidable impatient statement. Secondly, a phrase like 'it is a good habit to get into' shouldn't get said easily about someone's role... Don't you think? What if I wrote an email to you or Adam, that 'it is a good habit to get into reporting immediately to the IGC whenever you come to know anything of any significance in MAG'. Would you accept such language from me? Now, you may try to say that what Adam said was something very factual and I am imputing unnecessary interpersonal meaning to it.... Ok, let me respond to this by an example. I can give many, but since it is you who have taken up the case, I will use one involving you. In the discussion over 'Chris Disspain email leak' at one point you said that the offending email was only a personal opinion of one person. I responded to this by stating the 'factual point' that Chris starts the email by saying that a group had met and he is writing to express their concern, and therefore to quote my email ' I am not sure if you read the offending email'. A very factual thing, right! To which you replied ' Please do not be so condescending'. (mail exchange of 10th june, 2007). That was an interpersonal ascription to what was a statement of fact by me. I also just told Adam not to be so irritated. Can you tell me what's the difference between two responses. If anything, Adam's email is more clearly condescending. On the other hand, I can also claim that I was not condescending to you, and you over-reacted. Avri, this is an insider-outsider communication pattern. Apparently, some things are allowed to some and not to others... and I consciously, and dutifully, react when I observe such a pattern. Otherwise, in normal circumstances, I would have ignored Adam's email, as well as your present one. Having said the above, and placing my response in a political context of group-dynamics, I apologize for any offended sensibilities. It is likely that Adam was not irritated, and it is possible that if I write something about your and his role in the manner of 'it is a good habit to get into doing this or that....' you would simple not mind it. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:13 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > On 13 Mar 2008, at 09:00, Parminder wrote: > > > Anyways you as a MAG member are supposed to tell us such things, and > > also > > hold a conversation on the issue without getting irritated. > > > actually, i wonder, was he irritated, or did you just judge him to be > irritated. > and are you irritated due to yur your perception of him being irritated? > > and i wonder if anyone is ever supposed to do something without > getting irritated? > > or is implacability one of the CS criteria for MAGhood. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 15 05:27:29 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:27:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > It's also true that the "up to 1/3" principle is not binding in any way, > so if CS wanted to recommend that all seven rotate, it could certainly > do so - at most, it would be the Secretary General to refuse to do that, > if he thinks that continuity is more important than self-determination. > Right, I think Lee, Vittorio and Avri have together given us the basic elements of the way forward. Vittorio's comment above provides the most sensible basis for moving forward. I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. We come up with a slate of 7 - 10 names. The degree to which those names overlap with current MAG appointees is a matter for the NomCom to decide -- drawing from, of course, discussions on the list. We could nominate 10 completely new people or return the same group with a few new names. If we nominate a completely new slate and the IGF Secretariat and UN S-G thinks there should be more continuity than we have proposed, their final selection no doubt will reflect their opinion. If we propose exactly the same slate as before, likewise they could choose to rotate some of them. We have little control over that stage of the process, which will no doubt be driven by all kinds of behind-the-scenes lobbying anyway. I still believe firmly that all current MAG members from civil society should express their willingness to rotate out along with their expression of interest in remaining on. Ken Lohento's statement got it just right and I thank him for his integrity. --Milton Mueller ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 05:35:45 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:35:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > -----Original Message----- > we have > to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: > 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course > including those who have already been on the MAG > 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent > from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote > within the MAG > 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the > nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the > candidate has done so far > 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the > nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions > established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the > caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as > "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of > the IGC. > 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules > established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- > charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the > MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their > individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC > representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and > publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the ground rules for the NomCom. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 05:38:17 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:08:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> > I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. I move againt. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 05:41:38 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:11:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> Message-ID: <00f301c88680$c6542bc0$52fc8340$@net> To expand - So far your statements have all been in favor of entirely removing the present MAG And then you stand for the new nomcom Milton, the last thing - the very last thing CS needs is for the new MAG to be packed with people you shoehorn into it. And for the people that are currently in there (Adam and others) to drop off it. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 3:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio Bertola'; > 'Lee McKnight' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. > > I move againt. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 06:44:01 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:44:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> Message-ID: On 15/03/2008, at 6:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. > > I move againt. Not sure that it works that way. Why not instead volunteer to join the Nomcom yourself (if there is to be one), and sort out your differences with Milton there? FWIW, if there is to be a Nomcom, I volunteer to be on it also. -- 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}' Luxury Perth apartment for sale! http://www.yourestate.com.au/sresult.php?property_id=8581 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 06:45:49 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:15:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> Message-ID: <011901c88689$bed96960$3c8c3c20$@net> Fine, I volunteer too. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:14 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > On 15/03/2008, at 6:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. > > > > I move againt. > > > Not sure that it works that way. Why not instead volunteer to join > the Nomcom yourself (if there is to be one), and sort out your > differences with Milton there? > > FWIW, if there is to be a Nomcom, I volunteer to be on it also. > > -- > 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}' > > Luxury Perth apartment for sale! > http://www.yourestate.com.au/sresult.php?property_id=8581 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 08:20:08 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:50:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080315122016.E8A27A6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> > FWIW, if there is to be a Nomcom, I volunteer to be on it also. Yes, there will be a nomcom. That's the provision as per the charter at present. Though I did propose for consideration if a direct voting method can be used. And Meryem also proposed that this be discussed. Nomination of IGC/ CS members for MAG is close to as important as choosing co-coordinators (some may think it is more important) and Meryem did raise the question why should co-coordinators be elected and not MAG nominees.... There are advantages and disadvantages of both the processes. Anyway, while I think this is a valid discussion, and also personally believe that, if we were to choose that option, any IGC voting process by itself should by be more legitimate even if the charter has another recommended process, in the capacity of co-coordinator I will continue as if the nomcom option is being taken. So we need at least 25 volunteers to choose 5 noncom members by lottery. Thanks to those who have already volunteered. We need many more. Meanwhile, there are a few important issues that are being discussed about the process of nominations for the MAG. I think all these issues are very important, and invite all members to participate in this discussion. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:14 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > On 15/03/2008, at 6:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. > > > > I move againt. > > > Not sure that it works that way. Why not instead volunteer to join > the Nomcom yourself (if there is to be one), and sort out your > differences with Milton there? > > FWIW, if there is to be a Nomcom, I volunteer to be on it also. > > -- > 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}' > > Luxury Perth apartment for sale! > http://www.yourestate.com.au/sresult.php?property_id=8581 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 08:50:26 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:50:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> Message-ID: > FWIW, if there is to be a Nomcom, I volunteer to be on it also. btw, it there is a nomcom i suggest that, as in the past, many volunteer but only a few are picked at random. i.e. i still think that for 5 person nomcom at least 25 names should be in the 'pot.' 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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Sat Mar 15 10:20:25 2008 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:20:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080315122016.E8A27A6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080315122016.E8A27A6C25@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47DBDB29.1070404@umontreal.ca> Hi Parminder, Hi Everyone, If there is one, I volunteer to be on the NomCom. -Jeremy Shtern --------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Shtern Researcher: the media at McGill unit for critical communication studies & PhD candidate (ABD): Université de Montréal, département de communication jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca ---------------------------------------------------- Parminder wrote: > >> FWIW, if there is to be a Nomcom, I volunteer to be on it also. >> > > > Yes, there will be a nomcom. That's the provision as per the charter at > present. > > Though I did propose for consideration if a direct voting method can be > used. And Meryem also proposed that this be discussed. Nomination of IGC/ CS > members for MAG is close to as important as choosing co-coordinators (some > may think it is more important) and Meryem did raise the question why should > co-coordinators be elected and not MAG nominees.... There are advantages and > disadvantages of both the processes. > > Anyway, while I think this is a valid discussion, and also personally > believe that, if we were to choose that option, any IGC voting process by > itself should by be more legitimate even if the charter has another > recommended process, in the capacity of co-coordinator I will continue as if > the nomcom option is being taken. > > So we need at least 25 volunteers to choose 5 noncom members by lottery. > Thanks to those who have already volunteered. We need many more. > > Meanwhile, there are a few important issues that are being discussed about > the process of nominations for the MAG. I think all these issues are very > important, and invite all members to participate in this discussion. > > Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] >> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:14 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG >> >> On 15/03/2008, at 6:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> >>>> I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. >>>> >>> I move againt. >>> >> Not sure that it works that way. Why not instead volunteer to join >> the Nomcom yourself (if there is to be one), and sort out your >> differences with Milton there? >> >> FWIW, if there is to be a Nomcom, I volunteer to be on it also. >> >> -- >> 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}' >> >> Luxury Perth apartment for sale! >> http://www.yourestate.com.au/sresult.php?property_id=8581 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Mar 15 10:22:22 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:22:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus changed its mind in the meantime? 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should promote and defend the caucus positions >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own position paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and enjoyed unusually broad consensus. My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and understand the positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to agree on a common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the nominee should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee doesn't agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that consensus in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful in a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus depends on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of views and, above all, to compromise. Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all caucus nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case of a recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs members on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There are other channels outside the reach of our rules. jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> we have >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course >> including those who have already been on the MAG >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote >> within the MAG >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >> candidate has done so far >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of >> the IGC. >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the > ground rules for the NomCom. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Sat Mar 15 11:54:34 2008 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:54:34 -0000 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Message-ID: <200803151554.PAA28131@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear all, On the issue of reconstituting the MAG, I would like to continue my work in it and I would like to support the continuation of all my colleagues from the IGC to work in it who, in my opinion, maintained the overall position of the IGC, worked to preserve the interest of civil society and expressed civil society points of view in all MAG activities. However, I am committed to any rotation process agreed on by the caucus members. In that regard, I would like the caucus to continue its commitment to its statement during the IGF open consultation process last February which supported the rotation of 1/3 of the MAG across all stakeholders group. We should also take into consideration that we are not the only civil society group that will forward its nominations to the SG for the new MAG. So far the caucus has different views on the nomination process. I find that reselecting the whole group representing the IGC caucus is somehow contradictory to the caucus statement last February. Furthermore, we are looking at rotation process as of it is within the caucus, but in fact it is within the MAG and the UN SG is the person who will handle the rotation. In this regard I would like to refer to two statements made earlier by: 1. Adam Peaks: �as we believe CS is under represented I hope we can also make the case for additional CS members, how we argue that will be important (I hope on the merits of civil society's contributions to WSIS and the IGF, as the largest group of participants at the meetings, and substantive contributors to workshops and other events, rather than arguing some other group has too many.)" 2. William Drake: �These criteria, if followed, would suggest that we cannot take the path of least resistence and simply resubmit the names previously agreed but that were not selected last time. So we just need to identify 2-3 new, active, diverse, travel-enabled saints from the IGC." Coupling these statements with the facts that we are not the only CS group that will submit nominations and that the one third rotation is within the MAG rather than within the caucus representatives (and it will be conducted by the UN SG), I find Supporting the membership continuation of the current IGC representatives in the MAG (unless some of them voluntary will step down) adding to them 3 (or more) new nominations will be a proper and practical option that will not contradict with caucus position in supporting the 1/3 rotation of the MAG members. The selection of the new nominations should be done by the noncom based on the first criteria that was made initially that is: * Must be active civil society participants * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions if possible * Should attempt to achieve gender balance * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill and knowledge set, age, disability, etc. * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS updated on developments * Should be people who have shown ability to lobby governments in order to help achieve CS positions Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 13:05:48 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:05:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Message-ID: Jeanette, That's the beauty of the infinite loop of email lists, no debate ever need end, even if it reached a point of consensus a month ago : ) Seriously, we can reflect 'about 1/3rd rotate out' as a general guideline, while also recognizing that the final rotation (or not) is set by the SG and not by IGC. So we won a tactical/procedural recommendation battle on a principle of rotation a month ago, now it's on to implementation. And the nomcom will be free to recommend more or less since as Vittorio notes with small numbers of people we could easily get say 20% or 50%, even if aiming at 33 1/3rd%. Anyway, as Meryem and Milton recommend, I agree on codifying accountability and reporting processes by MAG participants to CS, as this mechanism within the institution evolves, is, within the bounds of what; now we get to argue about wordsmithing it, oh joy. Also as Parminder notes, maybe moving to elections makes sense at some point, though good luck trying to get that done in a couple weeks. The nomcom already has a half dozen volunteers I think which is a great start. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jeanette at wzb.eu 03/15/08 10:22 AM >>> Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus changed its mind in the meantime? 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should promote and defend the caucus positions >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own position paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and enjoyed unusually broad consensus. My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and understand the positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to agree on a common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the nominee should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee doesn't agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that consensus in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful in a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus depends on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of views and, above all, to compromise. Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all caucus nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case of a recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs members on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There are other channels outside the reach of our rules. jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> we have >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course >> including those who have already been on the MAG >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote >> within the MAG >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >> candidate has done so far >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of >> the IGC. >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the > ground rules for the NomCom. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 15 13:33:31 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:33:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden Message-ID: <012c01c886c2$c5ca8360$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly what is being "governed"... I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air rather than on the order of a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank account. MG -----Original Message----- From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Vera Franz Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an Internet subscription is a wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The government has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd -- Vera Franz Program Manager Information Program Open Society Foundation 100, Cambridge Grove London W6 0LE phone +44 20 7031 0219 fax +44 20 7031 0247 This message might contain confidential information and is protected by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it and do not make use of or copy it. _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Sat Mar 15 14:15:15 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:15:15 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden In-Reply-To: <012c01c886c2$c5ca8360$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <012c01c886c2$c5ca8360$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F021E197E@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Michael, Could I have it in Swedish please? Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Skickat: den 15 mars 2008 18:34 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly what is being "governed"... I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air rather than on the order of a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank account. MG -----Original Message----- From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Vera Franz Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an Internet subscription is a wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The government has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd -- Vera Franz Program Manager Information Program Open Society Foundation 100, Cambridge Grove London W6 0LE phone +44 20 7031 0219 fax +44 20 7031 0247 This message might contain confidential information and is protected by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it and do not make use of or copy it. _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 01:00:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:30:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden In-Reply-To: <012c01c886c2$c5ca8360$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080316050059.5729A67895@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and thus > by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a a > service > fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), presumably on the > order of areas such as fresh water and clean air rather than on the order > of > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > account. > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue of developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the North, policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more markets for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies, including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, as well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and practice frameworks for ICTD. It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first from a government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) rather than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue here, even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use the argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to be debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really beyond me. Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep disappearing (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) from IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details are already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in IG area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the moment anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as important issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that governance issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues - of what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against either allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or plainly, what Meryem called as 'inertia games. I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, how many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, what and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front in IG area... and such. I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased representation on the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum in the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly > what > is being "governed"... > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and thus > by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a a > service > fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), presumably on the > order of areas such as fresh water and clean air rather than on the order > of > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > account. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: > good news from Sweden > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the right > and > be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet subscription has > repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has met with strong > criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an Internet subscription is > a > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > government > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of Culture > Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > -- > Vera Franz > Program Manager > Information Program > > Open Society Foundation > 100, Cambridge Grove > London W6 0LE > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected by > copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it and do > not make use of or copy it. > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 01:23:37 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:23:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <00f301c88680$c6542bc0$52fc8340$@net> References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00f201c88680$4e649690$eb2dc3b0$@net> <00f301c88680$c6542bc0$52fc8340$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A214@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Suresh, grow up. Both of your statements are false and needlessly provocative. No one on a Nomcom is able to unilaterally select nominees. And I said that all Nomcom members should be willing to be rotated off, not that I want to get rid of all of them. > -----Original Message----- > > So far your statements have all been in favor of entirely removing the > present MAG > > And then you stand for the new nomcom > > Milton, the last thing - the very last thing CS needs is for the new MAG > to > be packed with people you shoehorn into it. And for the people that are > currently in there (Adam and others) to drop off it. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Mar 16 01:43:21 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:43:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A215@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Jeanette: These are reasonable questions. Let me respond below > -----Original Message----- > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus > changed its mind in the meantime? Two responses: first, the current MAG has been in place for 2, going on 3 years and there has been no rotation. A 1/3 rotation every year therefore would imply that all of them could be rotated. Second, in practical operational terms the UN SG decides who is to be rotated. The caucus is fully within its rights to give the SG a list that includes all, some or none of the current MAG members. > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should > promote and defend the caucus positions > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? For reasons of transparency and for the reason you outline below: in many cases, there will be no consensus and the MAG member will need to advocate, consider or modify positions to reach it. In that case, I and many others want to know where this person is "coming from." > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and kicks > out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... Your suggestion below is a good one: resignation. > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to > apply again. Exactly. That is the point I have been trying to make. Each MAG member should express a willingness to serve and to be rotated off. This does not mean we want to replace all of them, but it does make it clear that they are delegates of something bigger and also combats the notion that MAG members have some kind of God-given right to stay on simply because they were selected three years ago, or because they find it fun and nice to be in that position. As you say, a "clean process." > What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own position > paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and enjoyed > unusually broad consensus. People support the principle of rotation. But that principle has been ignored for two years running. In order to implement its spirit we need to make a statement. > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's > agenda. This is a requirement that cannot practically be enforced. I think it's cleaner and simpler simply to ask MAG applicants to produce the kind of statement of intent rule 2 asks for. Also I don't see why it is inconsistent to also ask them to report to the caucus after each meeting, although again that can hardly be enforced short of the nuclear option of recall. > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful in > a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus depends > on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of views and, > above all, to compromise. I don't like this mushy talk, Jeanette about MS consensus. There is no such thing. Governments want half the positions, they get them, it doesn't matter what PS or CS think about it. There are other examples but no point to go into them. > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all caucus > nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case of a > recall. Yes. > We should take into consideration though that not all cs members > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There are other > channels outside the reach of our rules. Of course. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Mar 16 05:21:53 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:21:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> Dear colleagues I think we have a consensus about a nomcom process, and to have new names, and some colleagues suggested principles of a specific mandate the people IGC recommends must have (we need to further discuss some of these rules). I would also like to say that the current CS MAG members have throughout these 2 years supported the caucus positions (even though the consensus is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and to other CS groupings, during and after meetings, even though it's it was not through formal proceedures, and even though we can improve things. But to continue with the nomcom process : first of all, I would like to say I will not vote against submitting only new names to the UN, but I think it's reasonable and consistent with the caucus last statement (Feb) and the general consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is some continuity within the MAG ; therefore at least a few IGC members of the current MAG should be included in the new list. Not having none of them in that list will also be interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence in all of them (unless we express clearly the contrary) and I hope it's not the caucus general feeling :-). We may include all the current members + the new names, or selected 3 current MAG members (through another ramdom process, unless we have a better quick method) and add the new names. In any case, it's true it's the UN that will decide. Best Ken L Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". > > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus > changed its mind in the meantime? > > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should > promote and defend the caucus positions > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? > > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and > kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... > > > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to > apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own > position paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and > enjoyed unusually broad consensus. > > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's > agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and understand > the positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to agree > on a common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the > nominee should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the > nominee doesn't agree with the caucus position, its more likely than > not that consensus in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful > in a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus > depends on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of > views and, above all, to compromise. > > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all > caucus nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in > case of a recall. We should take into consideration though that not > all cs members on the MAG got there through the blessing of the > caucus. There are other channels outside the reach of our rules. > > jeanette > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important >> analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but >> my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> we have >>> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >>> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course >>> including those who have already been on the MAG >>> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent >>> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote >>> within the MAG >>> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >>> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >>> candidate has done so far >>> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the >>> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >>> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >>> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >>> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of >>> the IGC. >>> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules >>> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >>> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >>> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >>> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >>> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >>> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. >> >> It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process >> proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the >> ground rules for the NomCom. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 16 08:12:35 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:12:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is: The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. Part of this arrangement should include a renewed commitment to ensure they provide a flow of information between the MAG and civil society (should be broader than the caucus) and whatever other conditions seem to make sense (we should discuss these criteria.) It's up to those five individuals to write up some persuasive reasons why they want/should stay on the group, and for the SG to select them or not considering advice he receives on their past contributions and the balance of the candidate pool. Important we emphasize civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and the MAG would benefit from an increase in civil society membership. Then provide an additional pool of 9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional candidates. The MAG recommendations say improvement's needed with regard to the gender balance and representation of developing countries, so focus on those areas: look for strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in particularly (South and South East Asia), and East and South Africa, making sure there's gender balance across the candidate pool and include Gender and ICT as a special interest group. Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006. Other civil society groups will put forwards names, and I expect (no MAG insight - just personal opinion) the SG's going to give those people the same consideration he will the people recommended by the caucus.  Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated out. The idea of the "black box" was for all to have to resubmit their names and one way or another 1/3 would not be re-selected. Adam >Dear colleagues > >I think we have a consensus about a nomcom >process, and to have new names, and some >colleagues suggested principles of a specific >mandate the people IGC recommends must have (we >need to further discuss some of these rules). I >would also like to say that the current CS MAG >members have throughout these 2 years supported >the caucus positions (even though the consensus >is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), >interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and >to other CS groupings, during and after >meetings, even though it's it was not through >formal proceedures, and even though we can >improve things. > >But to continue with the nomcom process : first >of all, I would like to say I will not vote >against submitting only new names to the UN, but >I think it's reasonable and consistent with the >caucus last statement (Feb) and the general >consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is >some continuity within the MAG ; therefore at >least a few IGC members of the current MAG >should be included in the new list. Not having >none of them in that list will also be >interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence in >all of them (unless we express clearly the >contrary) and I hope it's not the caucus general >feeling :-). We may include all the current >members + the new names, or selected 3 current >MAG members (through another ramdom process, >unless we have a better quick method) and add >the new names. In any case, it's true it's the >UN that will decide. > >Best > >Ken L > >Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". >> >>1. The caucus statement prepared for the last >>public consultation a rotation of one third of >>the MAG members: "One third of MAG members >>should be rotated every year." is this >>recommendation still valid and does it also >>apply to the civil society members or has the >>caucus changed its mind in the meantime? >> >>2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that >>the nominees "should promote and defend the >>caucus positions >>>> established by consensus before any MAG >>>>meeting [...] i.e. they don't consider >>>>themselves as "acting in their individual >>>>capacity" but as true representatives of the >>>>IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that the >>>>candidates disclose their own positions if >>>>they are expected to advance the positions of >>>>the caucus instead of their own? >> >>3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by >>the caucus. What would a recall process intend >>to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and >>kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I >>would say... >> >> >>In my view, it contributes to a clean process >>to ask all members to apply again. What I don't >>find acceptable is to ignore our own position >>paper on this issue that is in fact less than a >>month old and enjoyed unusually broad consensus. >> >>My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 >>into something more consistent. For example, >>the nominee should be required to actively >>participate in caucus discussions on matters >>that are on the MAG's agenda. Active >>participation allows everyone to know and >>understand the positions held be the nominee. >>In case the caucus manages to agree on a common >>position (which often turns out to be >>impossible), the nominee should present that >>position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee >>doesn't agree with the caucus position, its >>more likely than not that consensus in the >>caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. >>The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to >>suggest is not helpful in a multi-stakeholder >>environment such as the MAG where consensus >>depends on open discussion, willingness to >>consider others points of views and, above all, >>to compromise. >> >>Regarding the recall, the only thing I could >>imagine is that all caucus nominees could be >>asked to commit themselves to step down in case >>of a recall. We should take into consideration >>though that not all cs members on the MAG got >>there through the blessing of the caucus. There >>are other channels outside the reach of our >>rules. >> >>jeanette >> >> >>Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important >>>analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but >>>my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>> >>>>we have >>>>to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >>>>1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course >>>>including those who have already been on the MAG >>>>2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent >>>>from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote >>>>within the MAG >>>>3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >>>>nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >>>>candidate has done so far >>>>4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the >>>>nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >>>>established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >>>>caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >>>>"acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of >>>>the IGC. >>>>5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules >>>>established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >>>>charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >>>>MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >>>>individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >>>>representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >>>>publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. >>> >>>It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process >>>proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the >>>ground rules for the NomCom. >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 08:13:31 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:13:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> References: <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <20080316121331.GA8222@hserus.net> Ken Lohento [16/03/08 10:21 +0100]: > it's reasonable and consistent with the caucus last statement (Feb) and the > general consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is some continuity within > the MAG ; therefore at least a few IGC members of the current MAG should be I see that other people have perceived the calls to scrap all of the current mag and get an altogether new team in. Not that it'll fly very far - as others pointed out, other CS caucuses, and other groups get to have a lot of say in the process too, besides its finally in the UNSG's hands. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 10:04:38 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:04:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Message-ID: Adam, I agree with Adam's target number of CS members of MAG. I would assume most if not all current CS MAG members MIGHT be recommended by the nomcom. Having just established the 1/3rd rotation principle, I disagree with Milton about applying it retroactively, and with you Adam on leaving it entirely to the SG. For a clean process I think the main thing is to pass responsibility on to the nomcom asap. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 03/16/08 8:12 AM >>> I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is: The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. Part of this arrangement should include a renewed commitment to ensure they provide a flow of information between the MAG and civil society (should be broader than the caucus) and whatever other conditions seem to make sense (we should discuss these criteria.) It's up to those five individuals to write up some persuasive reasons why they want/should stay on the group, and for the SG to select them or not considering advice he receives on their past contributions and the balance of the candidate pool. Important we emphasize civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and the MAG would benefit from an increase in civil society membership. Then provide an additional pool of 9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional candidates. The MAG recommendations say improvement's needed with regard to the gender balance and representation of developing countries, so focus on those areas: look for strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in particularly (South and South East Asia), and East and South Africa, making sure there's gender balance across the candidate pool and include Gender and ICT as a special interest group. Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006. Other civil society groups will put forwards names, and I expect (no MAG insight - just personal opinion) the SG's going to give those people the same consideration he will the people recommended by the caucus. Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated out. The idea of the "black box" was for all to have to resubmit their names and one way or another 1/3 would not be re-selected. Adam >Dear colleagues > >I think we have a consensus about a nomcom >process, and to have new names, and some >colleagues suggested principles of a specific >mandate the people IGC recommends must have (we >need to further discuss some of these rules). I >would also like to say that the current CS MAG >members have throughout these 2 years supported >the caucus positions (even though the consensus >is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), >interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and >to other CS groupings, during and after >meetings, even though it's it was not through >formal proceedures, and even though we can >improve things. > >But to continue with the nomcom process : first >of all, I would like to say I will not vote >against submitting only new names to the UN, but >I think it's reasonable and consistent with the >caucus last statement (Feb) and the general >consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is >some continuity within the MAG ; therefore at >least a few IGC members of the current MAG >should be included in the new list. Not having >none of them in that list will also be >interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence in >all of them (unless we express clearly the >contrary) and I hope it's not the caucus general >feeling :-). We may include all the current >members + the new names, or selected 3 current >MAG members (through another ramdom process, >unless we have a better quick method) and add >the new names. In any case, it's true it's the >UN that will decide. > >Best > >Ken L > >Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". >> >>1. The caucus statement prepared for the last >>public consultation a rotation of one third of >>the MAG members: "One third of MAG members >>should be rotated every year." is this >>recommendation still valid and does it also >>apply to the civil society members or has the >>caucus changed its mind in the meantime? >> >>2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that >>the nominees "should promote and defend the >>caucus positions >>>> established by consensus before any MAG >>>>meeting [...] i.e. they don't consider >>>>themselves as "acting in their individual >>>>capacity" but as true representatives of the >>>>IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that the >>>>candidates disclose their own positions if >>>>they are expected to advance the positions of >>>>the caucus instead of their own? >> >>3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by >>the caucus. What would a recall process intend >>to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and >>kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I >>would say... >> >> >>In my view, it contributes to a clean process >>to ask all members to apply again. What I don't >>find acceptable is to ignore our own position >>paper on this issue that is in fact less than a >>month old and enjoyed unusually broad consensus. >> >>My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 >>into something more consistent. For example, >>the nominee should be required to actively >>participate in caucus discussions on matters >>that are on the MAG's agenda. Active >>participation allows everyone to know and >>understand the positions held be the nominee. >>In case the caucus manages to agree on a common >>position (which often turns out to be >>impossible), the nominee should present that >>position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee >>doesn't agree with the caucus position, its >>more likely than not that consensus in the >>caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. >>The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to >>suggest is not helpful in a multi-stakeholder >>environment such as the MAG where consensus >>depends on open discussion, willingness to >>consider others points of views and, above all, >>to compromise. >> >>Regarding the recall, the only thing I could >>imagine is that all caucus nominees could be >>asked to commit themselves to step down in case >>of a recall. We should take into consideration >>though that not all cs members on the MAG got >>there through the blessing of the caucus. There >>are other channels outside the reach of our >>rules. >> >>jeanette >> >> >>Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important >>>analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but >>>my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>> >>>>we have >>>>to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >>>>1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course >>>>including those who have already been on the MAG >>>>2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent >>>>from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote >>>>within the MAG >>>>3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >>>>nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >>>>candidate has done so far >>>>4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the >>>>nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >>>>established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >>>>caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >>>>"acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of >>>>the IGC. >>>>5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules >>>>established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >>>>charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >>>>MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >>>>individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >>>>representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >>>>publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. >>> >>>It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process >>>proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the >>>ground rules for the NomCom. >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 16 10:07:09 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:07:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47DAB966.5090003@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47DD298D.7050305@rits.org.br> I do hope that, whatever the mechanisms this caucus defines for arriving at a list of names, it takes into account the CS regional processes (some of which are already going on) for indicating people from the regions. I do hope we will finally have a list which is at least truly balanced regionally, if not balanced in terms of other criteria. I am afraid a NomCom, if adopting methods such as the ones of some other nomcoms we know, would be the instance to define candidates, instead of being a moderator/facilitator of proposals coming from the stakeholders. []s fraternos --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> It's also true that the "up to 1/3" principle is not binding in any > way, >> so if CS wanted to recommend that all seven rotate, it could certainly >> do so - at most, it would be the Secretary General to refuse to do > that, >> if he thinks that continuity is more important than > self-determination. > > Right, I think Lee, Vittorio and Avri have together given us the basic > elements of the way forward. Vittorio's comment above provides the most > sensible basis for moving forward. > > I volunteer to be on the Nomcom. > > We come up with a slate of 7 - 10 names. The degree to which those names > overlap with current MAG appointees is a matter for the NomCom to decide > -- drawing from, of course, discussions on the list. We could nominate > 10 completely new people or return the same group with a few new names. > > If we nominate a completely new slate and the IGF Secretariat and UN S-G > thinks there should be more continuity than we have proposed, their > final selection no doubt will reflect their opinion. If we propose > exactly the same slate as before, likewise they could choose to rotate > some of them. We have little control over that stage of the process, > which will no doubt be driven by all kinds of behind-the-scenes lobbying > anyway. > > I still believe firmly that all current MAG members from civil society > should express their willingness to rotate out along with their > expression of interest in remaining on. Ken Lohento's statement got it > just right and I thank him for his integrity. > > --Milton Mueller > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 10:14:07 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:44:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080316141428.29C22678C6@smtp1.electricembers.net> I will like to offer a couple of points, in my personal capacity, on this very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG nominations. The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central point here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard. First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in their personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This is meant as a corrective to a possible situation where seats are allocated to institutions, and whoever comes representing the concerned institutions gets to sit and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously difficult to implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most MAG participants, no one really seriously believes that they completely speak only on basis of their personal convictions, without any reference to the stands and views of the groups they are known to be associated with. Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term 'personal capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean that a MAG member has no representative-ness at all. As Milton colorfully described, this is not an invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You don't sit their because of any special personal attributes (that would be elitist), you are there in some representative capacity - whether of a constituency, or a set of ideals. However, especially for a CS member, since CS by definition is a less-institutionalized category, I do agree that it is not possible for a CS member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an element of 'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability to CS values and positions) here. So, we should have some promises and processes for reporting back, representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of 'personal capacity' based representation. We need to find an in between arrangement, as Jeanette suggests. I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true representative' positions are coming as a (I think legitimate) reaction against the way most/some IGC nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so literally that there has been very little if any 'representative-ness' character in their membership. There is another, important, angle here. When we make the demand to be represented in MAG, and be represented in even greater number than we are now, we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what and who we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we a collections 60 something members who have signed on the IGC charter (each in her personal capacity). A discussion list would not mean anything in such a context. A group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity, would still be just that. So, obviously any merit in our claims comes from (some degree of) our 'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative-ness' cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG members. Another issue is whether we will nominate from among IGC members alone. This opens the issue of defining members. The charter defines membership as those who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among all IGC e-list participants. Or consider anyone who we may think is CS, and still request a certain degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member. In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a discussion e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of those who are subscribed to the charter and (3)IGC is a kind of a front - or an interface - of a wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is also strongly implied in our charter. It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have some basis and legitimacy to expect that a couple of names we suggest to be included in the MAG. But for this while we should internally understand and affirm this 'CS front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS representation), we should also have some sense of what is the nature of that wider CS which we may represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have consistently refused to engage in. So while we will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our understanding that many/most CS members who have direct interest in IGF do in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to nominate some who may not do so at present. Generally, such people may be of a relatively high profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we still think they will be good MAG members. It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to keep sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our choices are right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they will, as may regular IGC member that become MAG members, will certainly push views beyond the constraints of only the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some distinction, one may expect that the existing IGC member nominees to have a much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star' outside-IGC CS persons that may get our backing. But the latter still shd do enough interaction. Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in between 'true representative' of the IGC and some amount of 'personal capacity' with a broader accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am misunderstood, I am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this exclusive 'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed MAG members have taken. And the situation should change, and change a lot. We should codify some processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS nominees that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in the emails that have been posted. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". > > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus > changed its mind in the meantime? > > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should > promote and defend the caucus positions > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? > > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and kicks > out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... > > > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to > apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own position > paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and enjoyed > unusually broad consensus. > > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's > agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and understand the > positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to agree on a > common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the nominee > should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee doesn't > agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that consensus > in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful in > a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus depends > on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of views and, > above all, to compromise. > > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all caucus > nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case of a > recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs members > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There are other > channels outside the reach of our rules. > > jeanette > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important > > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but > > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> we have > >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: > >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course > >> including those who have already been on the MAG > >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent > >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote > >> within the MAG > >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the > >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the > >> candidate has done so far > >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the > >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the > >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as > >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of > >> the IGC. > >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules > >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- > >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the > >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their > >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC > >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and > >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > > > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process > > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the > > ground rules for the NomCom. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 10:34:06 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:04:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080316141428.29C22678C6@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <20080316141428.29C22678C6@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <00a901c88772$cbb09cf0$6311d6d0$@net> Parminder wrote: > The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central point > here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard. Good. So, I suggest that when you find consensus within the IGC (and not simply you + milton agreeing about a few things) then I am sure the future MAG members would adequately share that consensus, and convey its sense within the MAG If, on the other hand, there is obviously strong opposition within this caucus - from 60 individuals who as you say are all in their personal capacities, with different and varied viewpoints, it would be ridiculous to expect MAG to project IGC consensus on such an issue. thanks suresh ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 16 11:54:44 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:54:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Adam, > >On 3/13/08 6:57 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > >>> *Never having vocally advocated any positions that might have been >>> perceived to be 'controversial' in some unstated manner by some >>> unnamed group deemded to be more important, since such offenders >>> probably wouldn't be selected even with assurances of role/shape >>> shifting capacities (a CS-specific rule). >> >> >> That's a bit mean (Parminder, I'm still not irritated... ) > >You may have missed my meaning, which was neither mean nor about one person. Bill, Then I don't understand what you meant. >Please look again at the list in relation to all the criteria mentioned. >http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html I'm probably being dense, just don't get it. Adam >thanks, > >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 16 11:56:53 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:56:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Adam, > >I agree with Adam's target number of CS members of MAG. > >I would assume most if not all current CS MAG >members MIGHT be recommended by the nomcom. Lee, I think we'll end up with a better overall result if we re-send the names of the five people the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 (with no particular endorsement other than here they are and the covering comments as I mention in the last email), and then look for a nomcom to recommend a strong set of 10-15 others, people from the caucus and also outside. There should be plenty of people from organizations that participated in workshops, best practices, dynamic coalitions. Particularly to fill gaps we think missing in the MAG now and noted by the MAG itself in the recommendations it will make to the SG. I think we give whoever it is making the selections more options if we do it this way. I am not saying we leave it to the SG (or whoever) but give them options to select from a wide set of qualified people. Adam >Having just established the 1/3rd rotation >principle, I disagree with Milton about applying >it retroactively, and with you Adam on leaving >it entirely to the SG. > >For a clean process I think the main thing is to >pass responsibility on to the nomcom asap. > >Lee > >Prof. Lee W. McKnight >School of Information Studies >Syracuse University >+1-315-443-6891office >+1-315-278-4392 mobile >>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 03/16/08 8:12 AM >>> >I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is: > >The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom >recommended in 2006 be included on any list of >candidates with a note to say the caucus would >support their continued membership of the MAG >should the SG find they continue to enhance the >balance of the group. The five (unless anyone >drops out) are included in any candidate list. >Part of this arrangement should include a renewed >commitment to ensure they provide a flow of >information between the MAG and civil society >(should be broader than the caucus) and whatever >other conditions seem to make sense (we should >discuss these criteria.) > >It's up to those five individuals to write up >some persuasive reasons why they want/should stay >on the group, and for the SG to select them or >not considering advice he receives on their past >contributions and the balance of the candidate >pool. > >Important we emphasize civil society has been >under represented in the multi-stakeholder >advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and >the MAG would benefit from an increase in civil >society membership. Then provide an additional >pool of 9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional >candidates. The MAG recommendations say >improvement's needed with regard to the gender >balance and representation of developing >countries, so focus on those areas: look for >strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in >particularly (South and South East Asia), and >East and South Africa, making sure there's gender >balance across the candidate pool and include >Gender and ICT as a special interest group. > >Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006. > >Other civil society groups will put forwards >names, and I expect (no MAG insight - just >personal opinion) the SG's going to give those >people the same consideration he will the people >recommended by the caucus. > >Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated >out. The idea of the "black box" was for all to >have to resubmit their names and one way or >another 1/3 would not be re-selected. > >Adam > > > >>Dear colleagues >> >>I think we have a consensus about a nomcom > >process, and to have new names, and some >>colleagues suggested principles of a specific >>mandate the people IGC recommends must have (we >>need to further discuss some of these rules). I >>would also like to say that the current CS MAG > >members have throughout these 2 years supported >>the caucus positions (even though the consensus >>is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), > >interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and > >to other CS groupings, during and after >>meetings, even though it's it was not through >>formal proceedures, and even though we can >>improve things. >> >>But to continue with the nomcom process : first >>of all, I would like to say I will not vote >>against submitting only new names to the UN, but >>I think it's reasonable and consistent with the >>caucus last statement (Feb) and the general >>consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is >>some continuity within the MAG ; therefore at >>least a few IGC members of the current MAG >>should be included in the new list. Not having >>none of them in that list will also be >>interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence in >>all of them (unless we express clearly the > >contrary) and I hope it's not the caucus general >>feeling :-). We may include all the current >>members + the new names, or selected 3 current >>MAG members (through another ramdom process, >>unless we have a better quick method) and add >>the new names. In any case, it's true it's the >>UN that will decide. >> >>Best >> >>Ken L >> >>Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>>Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". >>> >>>1. The caucus statement prepared for the last >>>public consultation a rotation of one third of >>>the MAG members: "One third of MAG members >>>should be rotated every year." is this >>>recommendation still valid and does it also >>>apply to the civil society members or has the >>>caucus changed its mind in the meantime? >>> >>>2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that >>>the nominees "should promote and defend the >>>caucus positions >>>>> established by consensus before any MAG >>>>>meeting [...] i.e. they don't consider >>>>>themselves as "acting in their individual >>>>>capacity" but as true representatives of the >>>>>IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that the >>>>>candidates disclose their own positions if >>>>>they are expected to advance the positions of >>>>>the caucus instead of their own? >>> >>>3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by >>>the caucus. What would a recall process intend >>>to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and >>>kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I >>>would say... >>> >>> >>>In my view, it contributes to a clean process >>>to ask all members to apply again. What I don't >>>find acceptable is to ignore our own position >>>paper on this issue that is in fact less than a >>>month old and enjoyed unusually broad consensus. >>> >>>My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 >>>into something more consistent. For example, >>>the nominee should be required to actively >>>participate in caucus discussions on matters >>>that are on the MAG's agenda. Active >>>participation allows everyone to know and >>>understand the positions held be the nominee. >>>In case the caucus manages to agree on a common >>>position (which often turns out to be >>>impossible), the nominee should present that >>>position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee >>>doesn't agree with the caucus position, its >>>more likely than not that consensus in the >>>caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. >>>The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to >>>suggest is not helpful in a multi-stakeholder >>>environment such as the MAG where consensus >>>depends on open discussion, willingness to >>>consider others points of views and, above all, >>>to compromise. >>> >>>Regarding the recall, the only thing I could >>>imagine is that all caucus nominees could be >>>asked to commit themselves to step down in case >>>of a recall. We should take into consideration >>>though that not all cs members on the MAG got >>>there through the blessing of the caucus. There >>>are other channels outside the reach of our >>>rules. >>> >>>jeanette >>> >>> >>>Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>>I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important >>>>analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully but >>>>my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: >>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- > >>> >>>>>we have >>>>>to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >>>>>1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course > >>>>including those who have already been on the MAG > >>>>2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent >>>>>from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote >>>>>within the MAG >>>>>3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >>>>>nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >>>>>candidate has done so far >>>>>4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the >>>>>nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >>>>>established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >>>>>caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >>>>>"acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of > >>>>the IGC. >>>>>5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules >>>>>established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >>>>>charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >>>>>MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >>>>>individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >>>>>representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >>>>>publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. >>>> >>>>It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process >>>>proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the >>>>ground rules for the NomCom. >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 12:40:10 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:10:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080316164027.90440E1071@smtp3.electricembers.net> I am not able to understand Adam's proposal that the noncom should recommend all the 5 members of the MAG. In the case of speakers for IGF @ Rio, we heard forceful arguments - including by Adam - for not nominating any of the IGF Greece speakers. The logic for this being several - that new perspectives are required, especially given that CS by nature is broad and diverse, and newer views/interests need to be heard. While the role of IGF speakers and MAG members are not identical, as Drake mentions, no rare expertise appears to be required that many CS members do not have. As for experience, there is really nothing that the MAG does, which cannot be learnt in a short period. Interestingly, some MAG members have suggested that they are in MAG more in their 'personal capacity' and not so much in terms of representing any group or CS. On this line of reasoning, there is even stronger imperative to rotate members so that we have wider CS represenation, and see new faces and different viewpoints. I find it even more untenable that the same people have both the 'expression of personal capacity' and 're-nominate all existing members' viewpoints. At least if we were agreeing with the 'representation' basis of MAG membership, the 'retain existing members' viewpoint may have some basis in better effectiveness of represenation etc (which, as mentioned above, I really do not subscribe to). I agree with Miltons observation that "an organization that does not know how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by definition moribund or worse, corrupt... And given the tasks of the MAG, which are entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the case for high levels of continuity is quite weak". I think a rotation of 1/3 should be the minimum rather than the stipulation. I think this was also the spirit of the suggestion made in our Feb statement. Within CS, we should have the spirit of understanding the work done by members and what will best push CS agendas forward. Automatic re-nomination as a consequence would really be out of place in our current context and it is truly extra-ordinary for existing MAG members to make such proposals. Regards, Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:43 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is: The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. Part of this arrangement should include a renewed commitment to ensure they provide a flow of information between the MAG and civil society (should be broader than the caucus) and whatever other conditions seem to make sense (we should discuss these criteria.) It's up to those five individuals to write up some persuasive reasons why they want/should stay on the group, and for the SG to select them or not considering advice he receives on their past contributions and the balance of the candidate pool. Important we emphasize civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and the MAG would benefit from an increase in civil society membership. Then provide an additional pool of 9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional candidates. The MAG recommendations say improvement's needed with regard to the gender balance and representation of developing countries, so focus on those areas: look for strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in particularly (South and South East Asia), and East and South Africa, making sure there's gender balance across the candidate pool and include Gender and ICT as a special interest group. Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006. Other civil society groups will put forwards names, and I expect (no MAG insight - just personal opinion) the SG's going to give those people the same consideration he will the people recommended by the caucus.  Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated out. The idea of the "black box" was for all to have to resubmit their names and one way or another 1/3 would not be re-selected. Adam >Dear colleagues > >I think we have a consensus about a nomcom process, and to have new >names, and some colleagues suggested principles of a specific mandate >the people IGC recommends must have (we need to further discuss some of >these rules). I would also like to say that the current CS MAG members >have throughout these 2 years supported the caucus positions (even >though the consensus is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), >interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and to other CS groupings, >during and after meetings, even though it's it was not through formal >proceedures, and even though we can improve things. > >But to continue with the nomcom process : first of all, I would like to >say I will not vote against submitting only new names to the UN, but I >think it's reasonable and consistent with the caucus last statement >(Feb) and the general consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is some >continuity within the MAG ; therefore at least a few IGC members of the >current MAG should be included in the new list. Not having none of them >in that list will also be interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence >in all of them (unless we express clearly the >contrary) and I hope it's not the caucus general feeling :-). We may >include all the current members + the new names, or selected 3 current >MAG members (through another ramdom process, unless we have a better >quick method) and add the new names. In any case, it's true it's the UN >that will decide. > >Best > >Ken L > >Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". >> >>1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a >>rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members >>should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and >>does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus >>changed its mind in the meantime? >> >>2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should >>promote and defend the caucus positions >>>> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they >>>>don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" >>>>but as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule >>>>require that the candidates disclose their own positions if they are >>>>expected to advance the positions of the caucus instead of their >>>>own? >> >>3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a >>recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and >>kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... >> >> >>In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to >>apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own >>position paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and >>enjoyed unusually broad consensus. >> >>My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more >>consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively >>participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's >>agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and understand >>the positions held be the nominee. >>In case the caucus manages to agree on a common position (which often >>turns out to be impossible), the nominee should present that position >>in the MAG meeting. If the nominee doesn't agree with the caucus >>position, its more likely than not that consensus in the caucus >>couldn't be reached to begin with. >>The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful >>in a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus >>depends on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of >>views and, above all, to compromise. >> >>Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all >>caucus nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in >>case of a recall. We should take into consideration though that not >>all cs members on the MAG got there through the blessing of the >>caucus. There are other channels outside the reach of our rules. >> >>jeanette >> >> >>Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important >>>analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully >>>but my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>> >>>>we have >>>>to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >>>>1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course >>>>including those who have already been on the MAG 2. Consider only >>>>nominations that come with a statement of intent from the candidate, >>>>including which positions s/he would promote within the MAG 3. In >>>>case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >>>>nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >>>>candidate has done so far 4. Establish some requirements that should >>>>be followed by the >>>>nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >>>>established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >>>>caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >>>>"acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of >>>>the IGC. >>>>5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the >>>>rules established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >>>>charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >>>>MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >>>>individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >>>>representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >>>>publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. >>> >>>It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom >>>process proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be >>>considered the ground rules for the NomCom. >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 16 13:00:39 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:30:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080316170049.3C900E0517@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated > out. The idea of the "black box" was for all to > have to resubmit their names and one way or > another 1/3 would not be re-selected. > > Adam Adam Whether there is de facto 'black box' selection or not, we as CS - and as a CS group- aren’t eager to submit completely to a 'black box' logic.... we want our say - which is the exact opposite of 'black box' logic. We may not be fully heard, and we want to keep our right to say what we want to. And our nominations will be the expression of what we want to say. It will be an expression to the outside world, to our new nominees and to our old nominees. Whatever the black box does with it, let it do. Everyone is allowed to resubmit their names directly to the black box. It is not for the IGC to do it for the sake of whatever as you say was meant by the 'idea of the black box'. We are not a dumb thing orchestrated to MAG and its superior's logics. It is strange that you are suggesting that since this was what was meant by the 'idea of the black box' - whoever made that 'meaning'- that selection of who to keep and who to rotate be left to the 'black box', we simply defer and not offer any comment or views on it. IGC backed MAG members are our reps, and we will offer our views on their rotation. For no good reason you seem to imply that we surrender that right. Can you please explain why we shd do so. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is: > > The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom > recommended in 2006 be included on any list of > candidates with a note to say the caucus would > support their continued membership of the MAG > should the SG find they continue to enhance the > balance of the group. The five (unless anyone > drops out) are included in any candidate list. > Part of this arrangement should include a renewed > commitment to ensure they provide a flow of > information between the MAG and civil society > (should be broader than the caucus) and whatever > other conditions seem to make sense (we should > discuss these criteria.) > > It's up to those five individuals to write up > some persuasive reasons why they want/should stay > on the group, and for the SG to select them or > not considering advice he receives on their past > contributions and the balance of the candidate > pool. > > Important we emphasize civil society has been > under represented in the multi-stakeholder > advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and > the MAG would benefit from an increase in civil > society membership. Then provide an additional > pool of 9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional > candidates. The MAG recommendations say > improvement's needed with regard to the gender > balance and representation of developing > countries, so focus on those areas: look for > strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in > particularly (South and South East Asia), and > East and South Africa, making sure there's gender > balance across the candidate pool and include > Gender and ICT as a special interest group. > > Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006. > > Other civil society groups will put forwards > names, and I expect (no MAG insight - just > personal opinion) the SG's going to give those > people the same consideration he will the people > recommended by the caucus. > > Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated > out. The idea of the "black box" was for all to > have to resubmit their names and one way or > another 1/3 would not be re-selected. > > Adam > > > > >Dear colleagues > > > >I think we have a consensus about a nomcom > >process, and to have new names, and some > >colleagues suggested principles of a specific > >mandate the people IGC recommends must have (we > >need to further discuss some of these rules). I > >would also like to say that the current CS MAG > >members have throughout these 2 years supported > >the caucus positions (even though the consensus > >is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), > >interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and > >to other CS groupings, during and after > >meetings, even though it's it was not through > >formal proceedures, and even though we can > >improve things. > > > >But to continue with the nomcom process : first > >of all, I would like to say I will not vote > >against submitting only new names to the UN, but > >I think it's reasonable and consistent with the > >caucus last statement (Feb) and the general > >consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is > >some continuity within the MAG ; therefore at > >least a few IGC members of the current MAG > >should be included in the new list. Not having > >none of them in that list will also be > >interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence in > >all of them (unless we express clearly the > >contrary) and I hope it's not the caucus general > >feeling :-). We may include all the current > >members + the new names, or selected 3 current > >MAG members (through another ramdom process, > >unless we have a better quick method) and add > >the new names. In any case, it's true it's the > >UN that will decide. > > > >Best > > > >Ken L > > > >Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > >>Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". > >> > >>1. The caucus statement prepared for the last > >>public consultation a rotation of one third of > >>the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > >>should be rotated every year." is this > >>recommendation still valid and does it also > >>apply to the civil society members or has the > >>caucus changed its mind in the meantime? > >> > >>2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that > >>the nominees "should promote and defend the > >>caucus positions > >>>> established by consensus before any MAG > >>>>meeting [...] i.e. they don't consider > >>>>themselves as "acting in their individual > >>>>capacity" but as true representatives of the > >>>>IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that the > >>>>candidates disclose their own positions if > >>>>they are expected to advance the positions of > >>>>the caucus instead of their own? > >> > >>3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by > >>the caucus. What would a recall process intend > >>to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and > >>kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I > >>would say... > >> > >> > >>In my view, it contributes to a clean process > >>to ask all members to apply again. What I don't > >>find acceptable is to ignore our own position > >>paper on this issue that is in fact less than a > >>month old and enjoyed unusually broad consensus. > >> > >>My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 > >>into something more consistent. For example, > >>the nominee should be required to actively > >>participate in caucus discussions on matters > >>that are on the MAG's agenda. Active > >>participation allows everyone to know and > >>understand the positions held be the nominee. > >>In case the caucus manages to agree on a common > >>position (which often turns out to be > >>impossible), the nominee should present that > >>position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee > >>doesn't agree with the caucus position, its > >>more likely than not that consensus in the > >>caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. > >>The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to > >>suggest is not helpful in a multi-stakeholder > >>environment such as the MAG where consensus > >>depends on open discussion, willingness to > >>consider others points of views and, above all, > >>to compromise. > >> > >>Regarding the recall, the only thing I could > >>imagine is that all caucus nominees could be > >>asked to commit themselves to step down in case > >>of a recall. We should take into consideration > >>though that not all cs members on the MAG got > >>there through the blessing of the caucus. There > >>are other channels outside the reach of our > >>rules. > >> > >>jeanette > >> > >> > >>Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>>I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important > >>>analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully > but > >>>my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > >>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>> > >>>>we have > >>>>to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: > >>>>1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course > >>>>including those who have already been on the MAG > >>>>2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent > >>>>from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote > >>>>within the MAG > >>>>3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the > >>>>nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the > >>>>candidate has done so far > >>>>4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the > >>>>nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions > >>>>established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the > >>>>caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as > >>>>"acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of > >>>>the IGC. > >>>>5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules > >>>>established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- > >>>>charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the > >>>>MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their > >>>>individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC > >>>>representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and > >>>>publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > >>> > >>>It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom process > >>>proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the > >>>ground rules for the NomCom. > >>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>>For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>____________________________________________________________ > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Sun Mar 16 13:06:48 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:06:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DD53A8.4050506@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Lee, > > I think we'll end up with a better overall result if we re-send the > names of the five people the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 (with no > particular endorsement other than here they are and the covering > comments as I mention in the last email), and then look for a nomcom to > recommend a strong set of 10-15 others, people from the caucus and also > outside. I still don't see your point here. What's the purpose of having these five individuals bypass the nomination process that all others are subject to? -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Mar 16 13:59:22 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:59:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080316164027.90440E1071@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080316164027.90440E1071@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47DD5FFA.2050704@wzb.eu> Guru wrote: > I am not able to understand Adam's proposal that the noncom should recommend > all the 5 members of the MAG. > > In the case of speakers for IGF @ Rio, we heard forceful arguments - > including by Adam - for not nominating any of the IGF Greece speakers. The > logic for this being several - that new perspectives are required, > especially given that CS by nature is broad and diverse, and newer > views/interests need to be heard. While the role of IGF speakers and MAG > members are not identical, as Drake mentions, no rare expertise appears to > be required that many CS members do not have. As for experience, there is > really nothing that the MAG does, which cannot be learnt in a short period. > > > Interestingly, some MAG members have suggested that they are in MAG more in > their 'personal capacity' and not so much in terms of representing any group > or CS. Guru, I don't recall any MAG member saying that. Who was it and when? jeanette On this line of reasoning, there is even stronger imperative to > rotate members so that we have wider CS represenation, and see new faces and > different viewpoints. I find it even more untenable that the same people > have both the 'expression of personal capacity' and 're-nominate all > existing members' viewpoints. At least if we were agreeing with the > 'representation' basis of MAG membership, the 'retain existing members' > viewpoint may have some basis in better effectiveness of represenation etc > (which, as mentioned above, I really do not subscribe to). > > I agree with Miltons observation that "an organization that does not know > how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by definition > moribund or worse, corrupt... And given the tasks of the MAG, which are > entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the case for high > levels of continuity is quite weak". I think a rotation of 1/3 should be the > minimum rather than the stipulation. I think this was also the spirit of the > suggestion made in our Feb statement. Within CS, we should have the spirit > of understanding the work done by members and what will best push CS agendas > forward. Automatic re-nomination as a consequence would really be out of > place in our current context and it is truly extra-ordinary for existing MAG > members to make such proposals. > > Regards, > Guru > _____________ > Gurumurthy K > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is: > > The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be > included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus would > support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG find they > continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five (unless anyone drops > out) are included in any candidate list. > Part of this arrangement should include a renewed commitment to ensure they > provide a flow of information between the MAG and civil society (should be > broader than the caucus) and whatever other conditions seem to make sense > (we should discuss these criteria.) > > It's up to those five individuals to write up some persuasive reasons why > they want/should stay on the group, and for the SG to select them or not > considering advice he receives on their past contributions and the balance > of the candidate pool. > > Important we emphasize civil society has been under represented in the > multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and the MAG > would benefit from an increase in civil society membership. Then provide an > additional > pool of 9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional > candidates. The MAG recommendations say improvement's needed with regard to > the gender balance and representation of developing countries, so focus on > those areas: look for strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in > particularly (South and South East Asia), and East and South Africa, making > sure there's gender balance across the candidate pool and include Gender and > ICT as a special interest group. > > Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006. > > Other civil society groups will put forwards names, and I expect (no MAG > insight - just personal opinion) the SG's going to give those people the > same consideration he will the people recommended by the caucus. > > Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated out. The idea of the > "black box" was for all to have to resubmit their names and one way or > another 1/3 would not be re-selected. > > Adam > > > >> Dear colleagues >> >> I think we have a consensus about a nomcom process, and to have new >> names, and some colleagues suggested principles of a specific mandate >> the people IGC recommends must have (we need to further discuss some of >> these rules). I would also like to say that the current CS MAG members >> have throughout these 2 years supported the caucus positions (even >> though the consensus is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), >> interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and to other CS groupings, >> during and after meetings, even though it's it was not through formal >> proceedures, and even though we can improve things. >> >> But to continue with the nomcom process : first of all, I would like to >> say I will not vote against submitting only new names to the UN, but I >> think it's reasonable and consistent with the caucus last statement >> (Feb) and the general consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is some >> continuity within the MAG ; therefore at least a few IGC members of the >> current MAG should be included in the new list. Not having none of them >> in that list will also be interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence >> in all of them (unless we express clearly the >> contrary) and I hope it's not the caucus general feeling :-). We may >> include all the current members + the new names, or selected 3 current >> MAG members (through another ramdom process, unless we have a better >> quick method) and add the new names. In any case, it's true it's the UN >> that will decide. >> >> Best >> >> Ken L >> >> Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >>> Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". >>> >>> 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a >>> rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members >>> should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and >>> does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus >>> changed its mind in the meantime? >>> >>> 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should >>> promote and defend the caucus positions >>>>> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they >>>>> don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" >>>>> but as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule >>>>> require that the candidates disclose their own positions if they are >>>>> expected to advance the positions of the caucus instead of their >>>>> own? >>> 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a >>> recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and >>> kicks out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... >>> >>> >>> In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to >>> apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own >>> position paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and >>> enjoyed unusually broad consensus. >>> >>> My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more >>> consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively >>> participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's >>> agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and understand >>> the positions held be the nominee. >>> In case the caucus manages to agree on a common position (which often >>> turns out to be impossible), the nominee should present that position >>> in the MAG meeting. If the nominee doesn't agree with the caucus >>> position, its more likely than not that consensus in the caucus >>> couldn't be reached to begin with. >>> The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful >>> in a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus >>> depends on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of >>> views and, above all, to compromise. >>> >>> Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all >>> caucus nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in >>> case of a recall. We should take into consideration though that not >>> all cs members on the MAG got there through the blessing of the >>> caucus. There are other channels outside the reach of our rules. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important >>>> analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully >>>> but my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> we have >>>>> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: >>>>> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course >>>>> including those who have already been on the MAG 2. Consider only >>>>> nominations that come with a statement of intent from the candidate, >>>>> including which positions s/he would promote within the MAG 3. In >>>>> case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the >>>>> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the >>>>> candidate has done so far 4. Establish some requirements that should >>>>> be followed by the >>>>> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions >>>>> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the >>>>> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as >>>>> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of >>>>> the IGC. >>>>> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the >>>>> rules established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- >>>>> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the >>>>> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their >>>>> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC >>>>> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and >>>>> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. >>>> It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom >>>> process proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be >>>> considered the ground rules for the NomCom. >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 16 14:25:50 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:25:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080316164027.90440E1071@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080316164027.90440E1071@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >I am not able to understand Adam's proposal that the noncom should recommend >all the 5 members of the MAG. I was actually trying to avoid the word recommend in connection with the five ("caucus would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG find they continue to enhance the balance of the group"). And tried to suggest after pretty minimal endorsement by the caucus they should be left to make their own case for why they should continue. We know 1/3 of the current MAG will be rotated, and those five will be part of the total current CS membership that will be rotated. Let them take their chance along the the rest of the people who make up the current CS MAG membership. Some will be cut, that's the rule the MAG made for itself (and what I think our statement a few weeks ago asked for.) The caucus should make recommendations about others who go through the nomcom process, stating their overall skill sets, how important it is for CS to be fairly represented, how these people fill gaps etc. Way I look at the process I think we will likely improve the number that way and get more new people into the MAG. I'm trying to think of ways to maximize the number of CS members in the MAG. I think this is something to be strategic about rather than stand on principle (Parminder, I understand that to be what you are saying, we should be principled, and respect that.) I could well be wrong, I am guessing how this may all play out. We don't know what other groups will suggest people, we don't know how many of the current members will be considered civil society. Adam >In the case of speakers for IGF @ Rio, we heard forceful arguments - >including by Adam - for not nominating any of the IGF Greece speakers. The >logic for this being several - that new perspectives are required, >especially given that CS by nature is broad and diverse, and newer >views/interests need to be heard. While the role of IGF speakers and MAG >members are not identical, as Drake mentions, no rare expertise appears to >be required that many CS members do not have. As for experience, there is >really nothing that the MAG does, which cannot be learnt in a short period. > > >Interestingly, some MAG members have suggested that they are in MAG more in >their 'personal capacity' and not so much in terms of representing any group >or CS. On this line of reasoning, there is even stronger imperative to >rotate members so that we have wider CS represenation, and see new faces and >different viewpoints. I find it even more untenable that the same people >have both the 'expression of personal capacity' and 're-nominate all >existing members' viewpoints. At least if we were agreeing with the >'representation' basis of MAG membership, the 'retain existing members' >viewpoint may have some basis in better effectiveness of represenation etc >(which, as mentioned above, I really do not subscribe to). > >I agree with Miltons observation that "an organization that does not know >how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by definition >moribund or worse, corrupt... And given the tasks of the MAG, which are >entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the case for high >levels of continuity is quite weak". I think a rotation of 1/3 should be the >minimum rather than the stipulation. I think this was also the spirit of the >suggestion made in our Feb statement. Within CS, we should have the spirit >of understanding the work done by members and what will best push CS agendas >forward. Automatic re-nomination as a consequence would really be out of >place in our current context and it is truly extra-ordinary for existing MAG >members to make such proposals. > >Regards, >Guru >_____________ >Gurumurthy K >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >www.ITforChange.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:43 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > >I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is: > >The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be >included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus would >support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG find they >continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five (unless anyone drops >out) are included in any candidate list. >Part of this arrangement should include a renewed commitment to ensure they >provide a flow of information between the MAG and civil society (should be >broader than the caucus) and whatever other conditions seem to make sense >(we should discuss these criteria.) > >It's up to those five individuals to write up some persuasive reasons why >they want/should stay on the group, and for the SG to select them or not >considering advice he receives on their past contributions and the balance >of the candidate pool. > >Important we emphasize civil society has been under represented in the >multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and the MAG >would benefit from an increase in civil society membership. Then provide an >additional >pool of 9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional >candidates. The MAG recommendations say improvement's needed with regard to >the gender balance and representation of developing countries, so focus on >those areas: look for strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in >particularly (South and South East Asia), and East and South Africa, making >sure there's gender balance across the candidate pool and include Gender and >ICT as a special interest group. > >Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006. > >Other civil society groups will put forwards names, and I expect (no MAG >insight - just personal opinion) the SG's going to give those people the >same consideration he will the people recommended by the caucus.  > >Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated out. The idea of the >"black box" was for all to have to resubmit their names and one way or >another 1/3 would not be re-selected. > >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 Sun Mar 16 14:32:15 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:32:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DD5FFA.2050704@wzb.eu> References: <20080316164027.90440E1071@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47DD5FFA.2050704@wzb.eu> Message-ID: At 5:59 PM +0000 3/16/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Guru wrote: >>I am not able to understand Adam's proposal that the noncom should recommend >>all the 5 members of the MAG. >> >>In the case of speakers for IGF @ Rio, we heard forceful arguments - >>including by Adam - for not nominating any of the IGF Greece speakers. The >>logic for this being several - that new perspectives are required, >>especially given that CS by nature is broad and diverse, and newer >>views/interests need to be heard. While the role of IGF speakers and MAG >>members are not identical, as Drake mentions, no rare expertise appears to >>be required that many CS members do not have. As for experience, there is >>really nothing that the MAG does, which cannot be learnt in a short period. >> >> >>Interestingly, some MAG members have suggested that they are in MAG more in >>their 'personal capacity' and not so much in terms of representing any group >>or CS. > >Guru, I don't recall any MAG member saying that. Who was it and when? >jeanette I once said: >At 10:20 PM +0900 3/12/08, Adam Peake wrote: >>Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 06:34:30 +0900 >>From: "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" >>To: "Vittorio Bertola" >>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >> "Meryem Marzouki" >> >>Vittorio. >> >>No, I don't see myself as a representative. A connector perhaps. But >>I don't speak for you or anyone else. >> >>I think this connector role means I should try to make sure CS views >>are heard in the advisory group. There are topics civil society >>obviously supports and I'll try to get those into the panels >>(panels: that's the four broad themes: Access, Security/Trust, >>Openness and Diversity) >>and workshops >>(there might be about 12, we haven't discussed in detail, but guessing >>that some workshops may focus in on some topic derived from one of the >>main themes.) >>I will try to push for speakers from CS on these panels and workshops, >>and will try to find funds for some kind of fellowships. >> >>But I don't represent you, I don't particularly want to spend more of >>my life trying to get a coherent and timely position from this caucus >>:-) If you folks come up with stuff, I'll do my best to present it. >> >>I'm saying "I" as I've not discussed any of this with the other CS >>people. They might feel the same way, or might not. > (Though context is helpful, and detail long been passed by.) When I've understood what the caucus' views are I've always tried to present them and argue for them (all CS MAG members have). But I don' think any of us have said we're in the MAG in our "personal capacity", if personal capacity means free agents who aren't in anyway accountable or responsible. I remember us asking the caucus on a couple of occasions to please produce statements as they supported us in the MAG. And it's clear from the press releases appointing MAG members the secretary general is making appointments in individual (not personal, that word is not used) capacities. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 16 15:41:29 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:41:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden In-Reply-To: <47dca98b.14da600a.72da.ffffe55dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <001201c8879d$f60a1410$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and extrapolation from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or could be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have been moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for Internet access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available off the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online filing of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus quicker access to refunds where appropriate and so on). However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax on those least able to pay?) I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming, supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that flow from this. MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > rather than on the order of > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > account. > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue of developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the North, policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more markets for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies, including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, as well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and practice frameworks for ICTD. It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first from a government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) rather than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue here, even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use the argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to be debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really beyond me. Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep disappearing (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) from IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details are already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in IG area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the moment anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as important issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that governance issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues - of what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against either allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or plainly, what Meryem called as 'inertia games. I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, how many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, what and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front in IG area... and such. I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased representation on the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum in the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly > what is being "governed"... > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > rather than on the order of > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > account. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: > good news from Sweden > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > Internet subscription is a > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > government > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > -- > Vera Franz > Program Manager > Information Program > > Open Society Foundation > 100, Cambridge Grove > London W6 0LE > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it > and do not make use of or copy it. > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > A2k at lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 16 16:39:35 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:39:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080316121331.GA8222@hserus.net> References: <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <20080316121331.GA8222@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47DD8587.9060208@rits.org.br> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: [...] > I see that other people have perceived the calls to scrap all of the > current mag and get an altogether new team in. Not that it'll fly very far > - as others pointed out, other CS caucuses, and other groups get to have a > lot of say in the process too, besides its finally in the UNSG's hands. Or so we hope... time is running short. --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Mar 16 17:29:41 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:29:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A215@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A215@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47DD9145.2010202@wzb.eu> Milton L Mueller wrote: > Jeanette: > These are reasonable questions. Let me respond below > >> -----Original Message----- >> 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a >> rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members >> should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and >> does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus >> changed its mind in the meantime? > > Two responses: first, the current MAG has been in place for 2, going on > 3 years and there has been no rotation. A 1/3 rotation every year > therefore would imply that all of them could be rotated. This may be your point of view, and that of Vittorio and a few others. From what I remember, the caucus never discussed this interpretation of the rotation rule, and I don't think there would be consensus on this. > > Second, in practical operational terms the UN SG decides who is to be > rotated. The caucus is fully within its rights to give the SG a list > that includes all, some or none of the current MAG members. Yes, that is certainly true but it escapes my understanding why the caucus would even consider a list without any of the current members. Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky once ascribed to sects the view that "the evil is at home, emanating from our own social system". I am often reminded of this when I see how we treat each other in spaces such as this list. > >> 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should >> promote and defend the caucus positions >> >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they >> don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but >> as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that >> the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to >> advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? > > For reasons of transparency and for the reason you outline below: in > many cases, there will be no consensus and the MAG member will need to > advocate, consider or modify positions to reach it. In that case, I and > many others want to know where this person is "coming from." I don't speak against this. What I question is that MAG members can "truely represent" something as diverse as the opinions of this caucus or any other civil society entity. > >> 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a >> recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and > kicks >> out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... > > Your suggestion below is a good one: resignation. > >> In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to >> apply again. > > Exactly. That is the point I have been trying to make. Each MAG member > should express a willingness to serve and to be rotated off. This does > not mean we want to replace all of them, but it does make it clear that > they are delegates of something bigger and also combats the notion that > MAG members have some kind of God-given right to stay on simply because > they were selected three years ago, or because they find it fun and nice > to be in that position. As you say, a "clean process." > >> What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own position >> paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and enjoyed >> unusually broad consensus. > > People support the principle of rotation. But that principle has been > ignored for two years running. In order to implement its spirit we need > to make a statement. That principle wasn't established two years ago. Two years ago we were nominated for one year. And then we were in limbo for about half a year or longer. > >> My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more >> consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively >> participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's >> agenda. > > This is a requirement that cannot practically be enforced. I think it's > cleaner and simpler simply to ask MAG applicants to produce the kind of > statement of intent rule 2 asks for. Also I don't see why it is > inconsistent to also ask them to report to the caucus after each > meeting, although again that can hardly be enforced short of the nuclear > option of recall. I didn't speak against reports, I asked about the logic of expressing once's own opinion if one is expected to not act in ones own capacity. > >> The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful > in >> a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus > depends >> on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of views > and, >> above all, to compromise. > > I don't like this mushy talk, Jeanette about MS consensus. There is no > such thing. Governments want half the positions, they get them, it > doesn't matter what PS or CS think about it. There are other examples > but no point to go into them. Sorry if you don't like what I say. Yet it is fact that the MAG is supposed to reach consensus on its recommendations. If the CS members cannot agree to anything but the positions the caucus managed to reach agreement upon, the CS members have a bit of a problem. What I miss in this discussion is the concept of trust. Some of the MAG members are known on this list for years. We have helped developing and advancing civil society positions for years. We have participated in the discussions on this list with the aim to develop convincing civil society positions. To act "in a personal capacity" is not worth much unless there is a considerable number of people who believe in the same principles and goals. Isn't that obvious? jeanette > >> Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all > caucus >> nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case of a >> recall. > > Yes. > >> We should take into consideration though that not all cs members >> on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There are > other >> channels outside the reach of our rules. > > Of course. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 00:05:49 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:35:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Message-ID: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to achieve its purpose. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 17 00:08:52 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:38:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <016801c887e4$9db7f0b0$d927d210$@net> Already volunteered. I believe Milton, and at least two or three others volunteered too, on the list. Can you check back through the archives? There's definitely more than 2. From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:36 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Importance: High Hi All I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to achieve its purpose. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Mon Mar 17 00:09:18 2008 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:09:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden References: <001201c8879d$f60a1410$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <060701c887e4$ad0442d0$6501a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Michael, If I'm understanding your "Swedish" comments, you are suggesting that the Internet has become (is becoming) the delivery vehicle for government services and that CS must factor the implications of this development into the governance of the Internet. A few thoughts on this and our times. First, I agree. Both at the local level here in New York City and in Washington, there is a drift toward a dependence on the Internet for delivery of government services. Second, in some venues here in the U.S., the scope and tone of the network neutrality discussion has assumed alarming directions. After witnessing the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on network neutrality, Susan Crawford commented, "We're seeing the moment when Hollywood, law enforcement, and the network access providers publicly attempt to join hands in favor of monitored/monetized network access." And if, as you say, governments and the delivery of government services are becoming dependent on the availability of a robust Internet, there exists a fourth interest to join Hollywood, law enforcement, and the network access providers in demanding a reconfigured Internet. Third, many years ago I recall reading in Eric Barnouw's "Empire: History of Broadcasting in the United States" detailing how our current broadcasting regulation came about. I can't recall the specifics, but civil society was engaged in that debate, speaking on behalf of the public interest, with different voices and at one another's throats. 10 years ago, when the net was on the rise and AT&T in pieces, I recall a delight that there seemed to be no one, no possibility for shackling the dreams enabled by the Internet. Fourth, now I'm not so sure. A couple of years ago I recall hearing one of my elected representatives say, in reference to the Internet, that "we might have to end this thing." Being somewhat my senior, and not living on the net, I presumed ignorance. But today I can imagine a serious attempt to put the genie back in the box. Now I don't think I'll see success on that front. But the amount of damage that can be done in trying to achieve this is immense. With a gun and bomb war started in the face of the Internet's full capabilities not 5 years ago, I don't imagine undertaking a similar blunder on behalf of some imagined bogeyman is behind us. And Michael, I don't know about Canada, but in my state and my nation's capitols, our leaders are starting to see child abusers behind every computer screen. A "war" to annihilate them is not unthinkable. So I agree that CS needs to factor in the role of government services. And I hope I'm quite wrong, but on a broader front, CS needs to unite, reorganize, and reenergize to head off some gargantuan stupidity. Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gurstein" To: "'Parminder'" ; Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and extrapolation from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or could be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have been moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for Internet access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available off the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online filing of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus quicker access to refunds where appropriate and so on). However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax on those least able to pay?) I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming, supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that flow from this. MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > rather than on the order of > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > account. > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue of developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the North, policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more markets for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies, including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, as well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and practice frameworks for ICTD. It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first from a government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) rather than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue here, even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use the argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to be debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really beyond me. Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep disappearing (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) from IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details are already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in IG area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the moment anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as important issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that governance issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues - of what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against either allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or plainly, what Meryem called as 'inertia games. I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, how many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, what and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front in IG area... and such. I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased representation on the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum in the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly > what is being "governed"... > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > rather than on the order of > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > account. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: > good news from Sweden > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > Internet subscription is a > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > government > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > -- > Vera Franz > Program Manager > Information Program > > Open Society Foundation > 100, Cambridge Grove > London W6 0LE > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it > and do not make use of or copy it. > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > A2k at lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 00:19:26 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:49:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden In-Reply-To: <060701c887e4$ad0442d0$6501a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <001201c8879d$f60a1410$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> <060701c887e4$ad0442d0$6501a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <017301c887e6$17c54050$474fc0f0$@net> I will not enter the network neutrality debate here - but will restrict myself to pointing out that even where internet access is treated as a public utility, it must be possible to shut it off for abuse / spam type reasons (temporarily or permanently, as the situation demands) ISPs consider it a best practice to use walled gardens, to isolate infected PCs that are emitting malware from the network so all the PCs are able to access are antivirus / windows update etc, as well as the ISP support pages. ISPs also consider it a best practice to shut down connectivity if the account owner sends out spam, ddos attacks etc. That right, besides the right to block objectionable traffic (47USC230), is already there, and should not be overridden (which includes related activity such as automated logging and monitoring of traffic in order to detect and mitigate spam / malware emission). srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:39 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > Michael, > > If I'm understanding your "Swedish" comments, you are suggesting that > the > Internet has become (is becoming) the delivery vehicle for government > services and that CS must factor the implications of this development > into > the governance of the Internet. A few thoughts on this and our times. > > First, I agree. Both at the local level here in New York City and in > Washington, there is a drift toward a dependence on the Internet for > delivery of government services. > > Second, in some venues here in the U.S., the scope and tone of the > network > neutrality discussion has assumed alarming directions. After witnessing > the > recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on network neutrality, Susan > Crawford commented, "We're seeing the moment when Hollywood, law > enforcement, and the network access providers publicly attempt to join > hands > in favor of monitored/monetized network access." And if, as you say, > governments and the delivery of government services are becoming > dependent > on the availability of a robust Internet, there exists a fourth > interest to > join Hollywood, law enforcement, and the network access providers in > demanding a reconfigured Internet. > > Third, many years ago I recall reading in Eric Barnouw's "Empire: > History of > Broadcasting in the United States" detailing how our current > broadcasting > regulation came about. I can't recall the specifics, but civil society > was > engaged in that debate, speaking on behalf of the public interest, with > different voices and at one another's throats. 10 years ago, when the > net > was on the rise and AT&T in pieces, I recall a delight that there > seemed to > be no one, no possibility for shackling the dreams enabled by the > Internet. > > Fourth, now I'm not so sure. A couple of years ago I recall hearing one > of > my elected representatives say, in reference to the Internet, that "we > might > have to end this thing." Being somewhat my senior, and not living on > the > net, I presumed ignorance. But today I can imagine a serious attempt to > put > the genie back in the box. Now I don't think I'll see success on that > front. > But the amount of damage that can be done in trying to achieve this is > immense. With a gun and bomb war started in the face of the Internet's > full > capabilities not 5 years ago, I don't imagine undertaking a similar > blunder > on behalf of some imagined bogeyman is behind us. And Michael, I don't > know > about Canada, but in my state and my nation's capitols, our leaders are > starting to see child abusers behind every computer screen. A "war" to > annihilate them is not unthinkable. > > So I agree that CS needs to factor in the role of government services. > And I > hope I'm quite wrong, but on a broader front, CS needs to unite, > reorganize, > and reenergize to head off some gargantuan stupidity. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Gurstein" > To: "'Parminder'" ; > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 3:41 PM > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and > extrapolation > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or > could > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have > been > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for Internet > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available > off > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online > filing > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus > quicker > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some > form of > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. > (Should > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a > tax > on those least able to pay?) > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest > with > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > affirming, > supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with > governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches > that > flow from this. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > bank > > account. > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue > of > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the > North, > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more > markets > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies, > including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, > as > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first from > a > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) > rather > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue > here, > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use the > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to be > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really beyond > me. > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep > disappearing > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) > from > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details > are > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in > IG > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the > moment > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > important > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that > governance > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues - > of > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against > either > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or > plainly, > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, > how > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, > what > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front > in IG > area... and such. > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased > representation on > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum > in > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of > exactly > > what is being "governed"... > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > bank > > account. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in > Europe: > > good news from Sweden > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > Internet subscription is a > > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a > society > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > government > > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > -- > > Vera Franz > > Program Manager > > Information Program > > > > Open Society Foundation > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > London W6 0LE > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it > > and do not make use of or copy it. > > _______________________________________________ > > A2k mailing list > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 00:42:38 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:12:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden In-Reply-To: <001201c8879d$f60a1410$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080317044240.C64BD6793F@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue. Connects IG to 'development' as little else does. I would say that this is the real 'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG. And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is the main agenda at the IGF. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM > To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and extrapolation > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or > could > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have been > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for Internet > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available off > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online > filing > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus > quicker > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form > of > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a > tax > on those least able to pay?) > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > affirming, > supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with > governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that > flow from this. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > > account. > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue of > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the > North, > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more > markets > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies, > including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, as > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first from a > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) > rather > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue here, > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use the > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to be > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really beyond > me. > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep disappearing > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) from > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details are > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in IG > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the > moment > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > important > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that governance > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues - of > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against either > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or plainly, > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, how > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, what > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front in > IG > area... and such. > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased representation > on > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum in > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly > > what is being "governed"... > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > > account. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: > > good news from Sweden > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > Internet subscription is a > > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > government > > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > -- > > Vera Franz > > Program Manager > > Information Program > > > > Open Society Foundation > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > London W6 0LE > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it > > and do not make use of or copy it. > > _______________________________________________ > > A2k mailing list > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Mon Mar 17 00:47:22 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:47:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <69CED34F-85C9-4669-BE8D-E6912481FBFD@internet.law.pro> I'll volunteer. -- Bret On Mar 16, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer for > the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and we > have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. > > We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. > > Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation can > go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from these > discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group for > clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on key > issues and information that are important for the nomcom to achieve > its purpose. > > Parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 17 04:28:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:58:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [Fwd: Outline of the WSIS Follow-up Report 2008 - CS inputswelcome] Message-ID: <20080317082840.F0DE4A6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear Charles Thanks for sharing the outlines of the 'WSIS Follow-up Report 2008', and soliciting inputs. I know the time is short, and so will only offer brief comments for your, and the drafting team's, consideration. Please feel free to seek any clarification, and we are also ready to forward stuff under the recommended sections and sub-sections if so required. In the 'Introduction' part, there are at present two sections - 'Purpose and limitations of paper' and 'Role of ICT for economic growth and benefits for poverty reduction'. Before the part on 'ICTs for eco growth' it will be good to insert a section on 'role of ICTs for social development'. Here we can have a quick introduction to progress over issues like access to knowledge, governance and democracy, empowerment, education, health, and livelihood support. All of these are centrally implicated in WSIS documents. Somewhere close to the parts on 'wireless revolution' and 'cutting the cost of local access' in the section on 'infrastructure', we may introduce a subsection with deals with important policy option in the area of infrastructure (1) open access polices from local to backbone levels, including the issue of network neutrality, (2) low cost/ free public and community-owned connectivity infrastructures. (There is some very important work done by UNDP on community owned networks, and muni-wifis are commonplace today. We can develop stuff on these areas to help the drafters if necessary.) These are the main inputs. A few minor ones: In the section on 'Content, Applications and Services' we can have independent sub-sections on health, and on livelihood support (agriculture etc). The subsection on e-Government should include ICTs for articulating voice of the disadvantaged sections, ICTs for advocacy, and ICTs for democracy. The subsection on 'Open access to information and software' should have explicit reference to all the work done in the area of 'creative commons', and contain reference to WIPO's adopted development agenda calling for strengthening and deepening the public domain, and briefly explore its implications for the digital space. The sub-section on education should include the work being done on open education platforms (for instance MIT's open courseware, and many others). Thanks, and best regards Parminder Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change (www.ITforChange.net ) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] *On > Behalf Of *CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:49 AM > *To:* 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > gov at wsis-gov.org > *Cc:* congo at ngocongo.org > *Subject:* [Gov 464] Outline of the WSIS Follow-up Report 2008 - CS > inputswelcome > *Importance:* High > > Dear all, > > Find attached the outline of the *WSIS Follow-up Report 2008*, to be > prepared by the CSTD Secretariat as the second background document for > the 2008 CSTD session. The publication of this report was mentioned > during the 26 February briefing with the CSTD Secretariat. In addition > to the *UN Secretary General's report*, which will collect information > and reports coming from the International Organisations serving as > Action Line facilitators, the *WSIS Follow-up Report* will consist in a > more analytical description of developments and trends. > > Its drafting will be done by the CTSD Secretariat with the support of > consultants. > > The CSTD Secretariat encourages *NGOs and civil society entities to > provide inputs and contributions* which will be shared with the drafting > team of the Report: these contributions should be sent to Charles Geiger > by e-mail; those who would not have Mr. Geiger's contacts can contact me > off line. The civil society contributions can either consist in comments > on the attached outline, or in written substantive documentation / paper > produced by your organisation on issues to be addressed in the report. > > There is no specific deadline for these submissions, but note that the > work on this report is currently on going, therefore the sooner the > better! Of course, these contributions will be used by the drafting > team, keeping in mind time and space constraints (the total report will > be 50 pages). > > It is planned that this analytical document should be published every > year by the CSTD Secretariat, as background for the CSTD. > > Feel free to get back to me for any further information in this regard. > > Note finally that information regarding the limited number of > fellowships for the CSTD session will be made available in the course of > next week. > > Best regards, > > Philippe > > *Philippe Dam** > CONGO - Information Society & > Human Rights Coordinator > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: **philippe.dam at ngocongo.org* * > Website: www.ngocongo.org * > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outline of WSIS Follow-up Report 2008.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr Mon Mar 17 10:57:33 2008 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:57:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: SCHOMBE Baudouin CAFEC/DRC 2008/3/17, Parminder : > > Hi All > > > > I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer for the > noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and we have till now > only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. > > > > We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. > > > > Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation can go > on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from these > discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group for > clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on key issues and > information that are important for the nomcom to achieve its purpose. > > > > 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 TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 17 12:17:07 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:17:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Ken Lohento wrote: > But to continue with the nomcom process : first of all, I > would like to say I will not vote against submitting only > new names to the UN, but I think it's reasonable and > consistent with the caucus last statement (Feb) and the > general consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is some > continuity within the MAG ; therefore at least a few IGC > members of the current MAG should be included in the new > list. Not having none of them in that list will also be > interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence in all of them Just to clarify, I don't know of anyone who has advocated submitting _only_ new names. What I have said is that the NomCom and the caucus should start with a clean slate in developing a new list. The fact that someone is currently on the MAG does not -- and should not -- guarantee that they should be on a new list. We know for a fact that the IGF Secretariat and the UN S-G will maintain a one-third rotation. Our list, therefore, is simpy our advice on who to throw out and who could be added. It is not even binding advice, as we all know. It is likely, in my opinion, that some of the existing MAG members will be on our new list, it is even possible that all of them will. But the whole point is to give the caucus, the broader CS community, the right to decide who is and who isn't. That seems reasonable to me. You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position below: Adam Peake: > The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom > recommended in 2006 be included on any list of > candidates with a note to say the caucus would > support their continued membership of the MAG > should the SG find they continue to enhance the > balance of the group. The five (unless anyone > drops out) are included in any candidate list. Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule. As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out and who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. Generally, I have been pretty favorably impressed with Adam's role on the MAG and he seems to have been one of the most active memebers in relaying information to us. Advocating incumbent rights in this way really undermines my support for him. People who have done good jobs should be confident in the ability of their constituency to understand and recognize it. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 17 12:35:42 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:35:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DD9145.2010202@wzb.eu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A215@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DD9145.2010202@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > Two responses: first, the current MAG has been in place for 2, > > 3 years and there has been no rotation. A 1/3 rotation every year > > therefore would imply that all of them could be rotated. > > This may be your point of view, and that of Vittorio and a > few others. From what I remember, the caucus never discussed this > interpretation of the rotation rule, and I don't think there would > be consensus on this. I think I clarified this in an earlier message. You are interpreting my point to mean that I think ALL MAG members must be rotated now, as a matter of application of the 1/3 rule. That is not my position. My position is that the IGC has the duty and the right to put on its new list only those people who it wants added to MAG. That may include no existing members, all existing members or somewhere in between. > Yes, that is certainly true but it escapes my understanding why the > caucus would even consider a list without any of the current members. It should be obvious. A list without any current members would happen ONLY if a large number of people here were strongly dissatisfied with the performance of the current MAG representatives. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 12:35:50 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:05:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > a one-third rotation. Our list, therefore, is simpy our advice on who > to throw out and who could be added. It is not even binding advice, as we > all know. Ah good. Throw out? Nice choice of wording there, possibly even a Freudian slip based on all the "maybe all of the MAG will be retained as before in our new submission" clarifications from previous emails (or like the below). > It is likely, in my opinion, that some of the existing MAG members will > be on our new list, it is even possible that all of them will. But the > Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule. > As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out > and who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all Why have a nomcomm at all, then? Have the current MAG members, as well as any others that wish to stand, stand for election. There aren't that many people on the list, and balloting should be fairly easy to arrange. With one person one vote based on some criterion like "has been on the list for so long" . Forget nominations, bring the process right out into the open. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 17 12:40:16 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:40:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I've already volunteered. 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: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:06 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Importance: High Hi All I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to achieve its purpose. 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 vb at bertola.eu Mon Mar 17 12:49:14 2008 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:49:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position > below: > > Adam Peake: >> The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom >> recommended in 2006 be included on any list of >> candidates with a note to say the caucus would >> support their continued membership of the MAG >> should the SG find they continue to enhance the >> balance of the group. The five (unless anyone >> drops out) are included in any candidate list. > > Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule. > As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out and > who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all > current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It > also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on > existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: you have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who could do this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus on a couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just to be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected from the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny. Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At Large elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis of its top-down nature :) My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So why pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. Ciao, -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 17 13:06:06 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:06:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > Why have a nomcomm at all, then? Have the current MAG > members, as well as > any others that wish to stand, stand for election. I agree, I might support an election over a Nomcom, but our charter calls for these things to be done by Nomcom and we have no authority or time to change it now. By the way, your implied critique of an election -- that the electorate is ill-defined -- applies equally well, if not more so, to a randomly selected Nomcom drawn from that very same electorate and given powers to make decisions for the rest of us. As for the wording, there is no "slip" but a fully consistent position: if someone manages to fall off the recommended list I am assuming it will be for a good reason; i.e., a consensus of the Nomcom that we would prefer not to have them reappointed. OK, "thrown out" may seem like strong language but it conforms to American usage, when politicians are not re-elected we say they are "thrown out of office." On the other hand, your attitude belies a much more problematic stance: Are you suggesting that you believe as a matter of principle that all existing MAG members must be supported, regardless of any evaluation of their performance? Regardless of the value of involving new people? Or is it just another knee-jerk "whatever Milton advocates I oppose" reaction? I suspect people are getting tired of that, and I'd advise you in the most friendly terms, for the sake of your own reputation, to try to make more productive interventions. 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 17 13:10:06 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:40:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <02ad01c88851$c10d1e10$43275a30$@net> > time to change it now. By the way, your implied critique of an election > -- that the electorate is ill-defined -- applies equally well, if not > more so, to a randomly selected Nomcom drawn from that very same > electorate and given powers to make decisions for the rest of us. The electorate here is very well defined - membership of the list as of a certain cutoff period. The cutoff is simply to ensure that people who have participated so far are the ones who are voting, and to ensure that there is a fixed, known number of voters. Ballot can be open or secret, fine. But nomcomm adds a certain extra level of indirection and perhaps even bias to the process, given that we have clear and obvious splits evident on the list. These will be ironed out if there's a ballot. But a smaller nomcomm chosen - even randomly - from this larger electorate - may well serve to tilt the balance in favor of one camp or the other. > On the other hand, your attitude belies a much more problematic stance: > Are you suggesting that you believe as a matter of principle that all > existing MAG members must be supported, regardless of any evaluation of > their performance? Regardless of the value of involving new people? Or No. I am simply saying "put their names all forward for election. Let all candidates stand in front" Excluding any, all etc of them - if done - would then be much more transparent than with a nomcomm. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Mar 17 13:51:19 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:51:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP Message-ID: Parminder, everyone, I'm hosting Bob Frankston today, the e-spreadsheets, NATs/home nets co-inventor. Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own special style, questioning public and private roles in varying geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that workshop. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/17/08 12:42 AM >>> > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue. Connects IG to 'development' as little else does. I would say that this is the real 'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG. And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is the main agenda at the IGF. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM > To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and extrapolation > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or > could > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have been > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for Internet > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available off > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online > filing > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus > quicker > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form > of > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a > tax > on those least able to pay?) > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > affirming, > supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with > governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that > flow from this. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > > account. > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue of > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the > North, > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more > markets > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies, > including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, as > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first from a > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) > rather > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue here, > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use the > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to be > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really beyond > me. > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep disappearing > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) from > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details are > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in IG > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the > moment > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > important > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that governance > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues - of > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against either > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or plainly, > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, how > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, what > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front in > IG > area... and such. > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased representation > on > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum in > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly > > what is being "governed"... > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank > > account. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: > > good news from Sweden > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > Internet subscription is a > > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > government > > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > -- > > Vera Franz > > Program Manager > > Information Program > > > > Open Society Foundation > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > London W6 0LE > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it > > and do not make use of or copy it. > > _______________________________________________ > > A2k mailing list > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 14:58:26 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:58:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <02ad01c88851$c10d1e10$43275a30$@net> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <02ad01c88851$c10d1e10$43275a30$@net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5BF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > > No. I am simply saying "put their names all forward for > election. Let all > candidates stand in front" Ah, then we agree on something! Isn't that nice? In fact, there are ways to structure voting to reflect strength of preference so that significant minorities could be represented. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 16:26:42 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:26:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> Message-ID: <47DED402.2090509@rits.org.br> Not sure if you need more names for the nomcom, but I would be willing to help (at least in reaching the excess number of possible nc members suggested by Avri). rgds --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Mar 17 16:28:12 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:28:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden In-Reply-To: <017301c887e6$17c54050$474fc0f0$@net> Message-ID: <010b01c8886d$83e45050$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> Hi Suresh (and Tom), Yes certainly it is understandable that ISPs may wish to exert this kind of control including in the context of Internet access as a public good (not necessarily a public utility which I would understand as having to do with the matter of ownership... In the approach I am suggesting whether the Internet is or is not "publicly owned" is a pragmatic issue but that it is approached in terms of policy, as a "public service", is not.) However, the issue here is not simply whether or not such oversight by ISPs may be necessary but rather what oversight of the ISPs might be necessary and possible to ensure that the public interest in these matters is protected. There is underlying this discussion a significant divide between those who have trust or at least some degree of optimism (hope?) in the capacity of publicly accountable institutions to ensure the delivery and maintenance of a "public service" such as, I'm suggesting, the Internet; and those who (perhaps based on direct and extremely sad recent experience of a particular global superpower) have little faith that such is possible. I think that the response to this deep uneasiness is not to reject the notion of the use of public means to ensure the public interest but rather to attempt in whatever way possible to ensure that those processes are accountable and responsible and this I believe should be the goal of CS including in this context since I see no way in which CS can as a group achieve the degree of coherence and consensus of vision or will sufficient to become an independent stakeholder in these decision processes. MG -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: March 16, 2008 9:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Thomas Lowenhaupt'; 'Michael Gurstein' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden I will not enter the network neutrality debate here - but will restrict myself to pointing out that even where internet access is treated as a public utility, it must be possible to shut it off for abuse / spam type reasons (temporarily or permanently, as the situation demands) ISPs consider it a best practice to use walled gardens, to isolate infected PCs that are emitting malware from the network so all the PCs are able to access are antivirus / windows update etc, as well as the ISP support pages. ISPs also consider it a best practice to shut down connectivity if the account owner sends out spam, ddos attacks etc. That right, besides the right to block objectionable traffic (47USC230), is already there, and should not be overridden (which includes related activity such as automated logging and monitoring of traffic in order to detect and mitigate spam / malware emission). srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:39 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > Michael, > > If I'm understanding your "Swedish" comments, you are suggesting that > the Internet has become (is becoming) the delivery vehicle for > government services and that CS must factor the implications of this > development into > the governance of the Internet. A few thoughts on this and our times. > > First, I agree. Both at the local level here in New York City and in > Washington, there is a drift toward a dependence on the Internet for > delivery of government services. > > Second, in some venues here in the U.S., the scope and tone of the > network neutrality discussion has assumed alarming directions. After > witnessing the > recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on network neutrality, Susan > Crawford commented, "We're seeing the moment when Hollywood, law > enforcement, and the network access providers publicly attempt to join > hands > in favor of monitored/monetized network access." And if, as you say, > governments and the delivery of government services are becoming > dependent > on the availability of a robust Internet, there exists a fourth > interest to > join Hollywood, law enforcement, and the network access providers in > demanding a reconfigured Internet. > > Third, many years ago I recall reading in Eric Barnouw's "Empire: > History of Broadcasting in the United States" detailing how our > current broadcasting > regulation came about. I can't recall the specifics, but civil society > was > engaged in that debate, speaking on behalf of the public interest, with > different voices and at one another's throats. 10 years ago, when the > net > was on the rise and AT&T in pieces, I recall a delight that there > seemed to > be no one, no possibility for shackling the dreams enabled by the > Internet. > > Fourth, now I'm not so sure. A couple of years ago I recall hearing > one of my elected representatives say, in reference to the Internet, > that "we might > have to end this thing." Being somewhat my senior, and not living on > the > net, I presumed ignorance. But today I can imagine a serious attempt to > put > the genie back in the box. Now I don't think I'll see success on that > front. > But the amount of damage that can be done in trying to achieve this is > immense. With a gun and bomb war started in the face of the Internet's > full > capabilities not 5 years ago, I don't imagine undertaking a similar > blunder > on behalf of some imagined bogeyman is behind us. And Michael, I don't > know > about Canada, but in my state and my nation's capitols, our leaders are > starting to see child abusers behind every computer screen. A "war" to > annihilate them is not unthinkable. > > So I agree that CS needs to factor in the role of government services. > And I hope I'm quite wrong, but on a broader front, CS needs to unite, > reorganize, > and reenergize to head off some gargantuan stupidity. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Gurstein" > To: "'Parminder'" ; > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 3:41 PM > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and > extrapolation > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or > could be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments > have been > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for Internet > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available > off > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online > filing > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus > quicker > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some > form of broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet > access. (Should > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a > tax > on those least able to pay?) > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet Governance as developing the broad framework for the > "governance" of a privately delivered widely valuable but > discretionary service to the "governance" of a public good being > delivered in the public interest with > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > affirming, supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and > working with governments and others to determine the > policy/programming approaches that > flow from this. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > > and thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be > > treated as > a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of a discretionary service such as for > > example cable television or a > bank > > account. > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue > of developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the > North, > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more > markets > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies, > including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, > as > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first > from a government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity > issues) rather > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue > here, even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will > use the argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like > this to be debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a > market infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to > public well being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is > really beyond me. > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep > disappearing (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the > first place) from > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details > are > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in > IG > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the > moment > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > important > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that > governance > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues > - of what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against > either > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or > plainly, > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, > how many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we > are, what > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front > in IG > area... and such. > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased > representation on the MAG without at all examining these issues. We > must be alive to a possible view that we may just be illegitimately > occupying a CS vacuum in > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of > exactly > > what is being "governed"... > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > > and thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be > > treated as > a > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > rather than on the order of a discretionary service such as for > > example cable television or a > bank > > account. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in > Europe: > > good news from Sweden > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > Internet subscription is a wide-reaching measure that could have > > serious repercussions in a > society > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > government has, because of this, decided not to pursue this > > proposal." > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > -- > > Vera Franz > > Program Manager > > Information Program > > > > Open Society Foundation > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > London W6 0LE > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete > > it and do not make use of or copy it. > > _______________________________________________ > > A2k mailing list > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 16:36:08 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:36:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <47DED638.6060501@rits.org.br> We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies which are involved in the IG debate). Otherwise this might lead to an endless imbroglio (Vittorio knows the meaning of the word...) and we better stick to Vittorio's suggestion. Probably the nomcom thing might become so troublesome that we might overshoot all deadlines and end up nominating no one, or do so with a lot of disagreements. Let us be careful (but we also need to act quickly...). frt rgds --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >> You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position >> below: >> >> Adam Peake: >>> The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be >>> included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus >>> would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG >>> find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five >>> (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. >> >> Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule. >> As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out and >> who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all >> current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It >> also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on >> existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. > > Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: you > have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who could do > this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus on a > couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just to > be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected from > the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny. > > Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At Large > elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the > people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis of > its top-down nature :) > > My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members > should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So why > pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been > playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future > credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > Ciao, ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Mar 17 17:13:06 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:13:06 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DED638.6060501@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <010101c88873$b52b27a0$ccffed0a@IAN> Count me in for a nomcom pool as well I think with avri volunteering to pull this together we should be able to act decisively and manage to come up with representative nominations Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: 18 March 2008 07:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere > to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative > to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process > and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the > different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies which > are involved in the IG debate). > > Otherwise this might lead to an endless imbroglio (Vittorio knows the > meaning of the word...) and we better stick to Vittorio's suggestion. > > Probably the nomcom thing might become so troublesome that we might > overshoot all deadlines and end up nominating no one, or do so with a > lot of disagreements. Let us be careful (but we also need to act > quickly...). > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > >> You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position > >> below: > >> > >> Adam Peake: > >>> The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be > >>> included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus > >>> would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG > >>> find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five > >>> (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. > >> > >> Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this > rule. > >> As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out > and > >> who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all > >> current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It > >> also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on > >> existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. > > > > Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: you > > have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who could do > > this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus on a > > couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just to > > be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected from > > the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny. > > > > Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At Large > > elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the > > people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis of > > its top-down nature :) > > > > My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members > > should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So why > > pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been > > playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future > > credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? > > > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > > > Ciao, > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date: > 17/03/2008 10:48 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date: 17/03/2008 10:48 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 20:41:49 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:41:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5BF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <029c01c8884c$f751bbc0$e5f53340$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <02ad01c88851$c10d1e10$43275a30$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5BF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080318004149.GA26480@hserus.net> Milton L Mueller [17/03/08 14:58 -0400]: >Ah, then we agree on something! Isn't that nice? >In fact, there are ways to structure voting to reflect strength of >preference so that significant minorities could be represented. I'm not much of a believer in those working, especially on a very small electorate. "10 people believe something, 5 believe something else, out of a pool of 60 people" isnt really the scale those voting models work best at. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 17 20:44:03 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:44:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080318004403.GB26480@hserus.net> Lee McKnight [17/03/08 13:51 -0400]: >Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own >special style, questioning public and private roles in varying >geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. >We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that >workshop. It is a very special style indeed, and revolutionary ideas. The question is how practical those ideas are, the answer being "not always". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 17 20:59:30 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:59:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP In-Reply-To: <010b01c8886d$83e45050$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <017301c887e6$17c54050$474fc0f0$@net> <010b01c8886d$83e45050$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080318005930.GG26480@hserus.net> Michael Gurstein [17/03/08 13:28 -0700]: >I think that the response to this deep uneasiness is not to reject the >notion of the use of public means to ensure the public interest but rather >to attempt in whatever way possible to ensure that those processes are >accountable and responsible and this I believe should be the goal of CS CS can help by working to ensure transparency / accountability etc in these processes, definitely. CS can be an independent stakeholder too - the "user community" is critical in keeping ISPs on the straight and narrow when it comes to not abusing their powers, and in keeping governments that way as well, when it comes to legislation that affects this. But CS can be one of two things - vocal and uninformed, or deeply involved, engaged and informed. On the whole, I would prefer #2. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Mar 17 21:19:29 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:19:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISPliability in Europe: good news from Sweden In-Reply-To: <20080318005930.GG26480@hserus.net> Message-ID: <015e01c88896$336a1000$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> Yes and I agree... MG -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: March 17, 2008 6:00 PM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Thomas Lowenhaupt' Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISPliability in Europe: good news from Sweden Michael Gurstein [17/03/08 13:28 -0700]: >I think that the response to this deep uneasiness is not to reject the >notion of the use of public means to ensure the public interest but >rather to attempt in whatever way possible to ensure that those >processes are accountable and responsible and this I believe should be >the goal of CS CS can help by working to ensure transparency / accountability etc in these processes, definitely. CS can be an independent stakeholder too - the "user community" is critical in keeping ISPs on the straight and narrow when it comes to not abusing their powers, and in keeping governments that way as well, when it comes to legislation that affects this. But CS can be one of two things - vocal and uninformed, or deeply involved, engaged and informed. On the whole, I would prefer #2. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Mar 17 23:23:56 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:23:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Message-ID: ok, since we need more names and I've been nudging in this direction, I'll jump in the nomcom pool (and hope to be booted out). what are we up to by now? who's keeping track? 1/3rd of way there? 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 03/17/08 5:13 PM >>> Count me in for a nomcom pool as well I think with avri volunteering to pull this together we should be able to act decisively and manage to come up with representative nominations Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: 18 March 2008 07:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere > to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative > to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process > and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the > different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies which > are involved in the IG debate). > > Otherwise this might lead to an endless imbroglio (Vittorio knows the > meaning of the word...) and we better stick to Vittorio's suggestion. > > Probably the nomcom thing might become so troublesome that we might > overshoot all deadlines and end up nominating no one, or do so with a > lot of disagreements. Let us be careful (but we also need to act > quickly...). > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > >> You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position > >> below: > >> > >> Adam Peake: > >>> The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be > >>> included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus > >>> would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG > >>> find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five > >>> (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. > >> > >> Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this > rule. > >> As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out > and > >> who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all > >> current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It > >> also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on > >> existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. > > > > Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: you > > have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who could do > > this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus on a > > couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just to > > be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected from > > the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny. > > > > Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At Large > > elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the > > people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis of > > its top-down nature :) > > > > My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members > > should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So why > > pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been > > playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future > > credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? > > > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > > > Ciao, > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date: > 17/03/2008 10:48 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date: 17/03/2008 10:48 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 18 01:03:23 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:33:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20080318050332.EF43767828@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. Wait a minute, Vittorio. You are still a co-coordinator (even if at this stage a little reluctant one) till we have the new co-coordinator. :) We may need to consult on some issues during the process, so Id like it best if you stayed out of the nomcom. As for co-coordinator elections, as you know, we now have a voting software, and ill quickly get down to work on it. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:19 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > > You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position > > below: > > > > Adam Peake: > >> The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom > >> recommended in 2006 be included on any list of > >> candidates with a note to say the caucus would > >> support their continued membership of the MAG > >> should the SG find they continue to enhance the > >> balance of the group. The five (unless anyone > >> drops out) are included in any candidate list. > > > > Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule. > > As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out and > > who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all > > current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It > > also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on > > existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. > > Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: you > have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who could do > this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus on a > couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just to > be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected from > the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny. > > Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At Large > elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the > people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis of > its top-down nature :) > > My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members > should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So why > pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been > playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future > credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > Ciao, > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 18 01:06:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:36:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080318050624.002ED6782D@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I agree, I might support an election over a Nomcom, but our charter > calls for these things to be done by Nomcom and we have no authority or > time to change it now. Yes, lets go with a nomcom this time, and rethink after this process is over. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > Why have a nomcomm at all, then? Have the current MAG > > members, as well as > > any others that wish to stand, stand for election. > > I agree, I might support an election over a Nomcom, but our charter > calls for these things to be done by Nomcom and we have no authority or > time to change it now. By the way, your implied critique of an election > -- that the electorate is ill-defined -- applies equally well, if not > more so, to a randomly selected Nomcom drawn from that very same > electorate and given powers to make decisions for the rest of us. > > As for the wording, there is no "slip" but a fully consistent position: > if someone manages to fall off the recommended list I am assuming it > will be for a good reason; i.e., a consensus of the Nomcom that we would > prefer not to have them reappointed. OK, "thrown out" may seem like > strong language but it conforms to American usage, when politicians are > not re-elected we say they are "thrown out of office." > > On the other hand, your attitude belies a much more problematic stance: > Are you suggesting that you believe as a matter of principle that all > existing MAG members must be supported, regardless of any evaluation of > their performance? Regardless of the value of involving new people? Or > is it just another knee-jerk "whatever Milton advocates I oppose" > reaction? I suspect people are getting tired of that, and I'd advise you > in the most friendly terms, for the sake of your own reputation, to try > to make more productive interventions. > > 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 Tue Mar 18 01:09:13 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:39:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080318050921.C7D87E2F4A@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > workshop. > > Lee Thanks. Will like to know about his critique and his model. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:21 PM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from > > Parminder, everyone, > > I'm hosting Bob Frankston today, the e-spreadsheets, NATs/home nets > co-inventor. > > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > workshop. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/17/08 12:42 AM >>> > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest > with > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue. > Connects IG > to 'development' as little else does. I would say that this is the real > 'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG. > > And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is the > main > agenda at the IGF. > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM > > To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and > extrapolation > > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or > > could > > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have > been > > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for > Internet > > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available > off > > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online > > filing > > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus > > quicker > > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some > form > > of > > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. > (Should > > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent > a > > tax > > on those least able to pay?) > > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest > with > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > > affirming, > > supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with > > governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches > that > > flow from this. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > and > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > > rather than on the order of > > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > bank > > > account. > > > > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue > of > > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the > > North, > > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more > > markets > > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor > agencies, > > including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, > as > > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and > > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first > from a > > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) > > rather > > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. > > > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue > here, > > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use > the > > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to > be > > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market > > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well > > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really > beyond > > me. > > > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep > disappearing > > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) > from > > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details > are > > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in > IG > > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the > > moment > > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > > important > > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that > governance > > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. > > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues > - of > > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against > either > > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or > plainly, > > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, > how > > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, > what > > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front > in > > IG > > area... and such. > > > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased > representation > > on > > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a > > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum > in > > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of > exactly > > > what is being "governed"... > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > and > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > > rather than on the order of > > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > bank > > > account. > > > > > > MG > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in > Europe: > > > good news from Sweden > > > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > > Internet subscription is a > > > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a > society > > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > > government > > > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > > > -- > > > Vera Franz > > > Program Manager > > > Information Program > > > > > > Open Society Foundation > > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > > London W6 0LE > > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete > it > > > and do not make use of or copy it. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > A2k mailing list > > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 18 01:26:12 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:56:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DED638.6060501@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080318052620.ACDEBE2F53@smtp3.electricembers.net> > We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere > to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative > to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process > and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the > different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies which > are involved in the IG debate). > Carlos I think the nomcom will have to do more than 'consolidate a list of names' as reach it from various quarters. It is has to do 'selection', there is no other choice. (I did propose consideration of the alternative of direct voting a few days back.) And what do you mean by ' a list of names generated by the IGC'. Nomcom is THE process to generate such a list. Or do you mean anyone from within or outside who self-nominates, or someone else nominates her, automatically forms this list.... I don't think we are looking at that. Forwarding a huge list of all willing persons to the SG will just mean we give up all our selection rights and leave it entirely to the SG. I don't think this is what most people here want... And yes, nomcom should give due weight-age and if needed priority to nominations by other CS groups. But unfortunately there arent many who will be doing such a nomination process. It is for this reason that even if with a thin, and somewhat shaky, base, IGC which (to a considerable extent) fills in the CS vacuum in the IG space should consider these task of CS representation with a great deal of seriousness and sense of responsibility. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:06 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere > to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative > to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process > and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the > different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies which > are involved in the IG debate). > > Otherwise this might lead to an endless imbroglio (Vittorio knows the > meaning of the word...) and we better stick to Vittorio's suggestion. > > Probably the nomcom thing might become so troublesome that we might > overshoot all deadlines and end up nominating no one, or do so with a > lot of disagreements. Let us be careful (but we also need to act > quickly...). > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > >> You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position > >> below: > >> > >> Adam Peake: > >>> The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 be > >>> included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus > >>> would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG > >>> find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five > >>> (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. > >> > >> Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this > rule. > >> As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out > and > >> who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all > >> current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It > >> also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on > >> existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. > > > > Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: you > > have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who could do > > this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus on a > > couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just to > > be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected from > > the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny. > > > > Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At Large > > elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the > > people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis of > > its top-down nature :) > > > > My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members > > should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So why > > pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been > > playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future > > credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? > > > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > > > Ciao, > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 01:46:55 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Riaz Bajwa) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:46:55 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080318050332.EF43767828@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47df5758.1487460a.669e.1bb8@mx.google.com> Hi Everyone, My name is Fouad Bajwa and I am new to this list, thanks to Parminder for inviting me to join. Just as a brief introduction, my engagement with IG with a particular focus on ICT4D and Free and Open Source Software/Access to Knowledge began many years ago and participation in the WSIS was part of our efforts. I bring with me a background spanned over more than a decade of working in the government, academia, civil society and private sector. Advocacy, online journalism and ICT4D reporting & analysis have been a parallel activity for me throughout my career and I have been contributing to the BytesForAll South Asia Network [ http://www.bytesforall.net & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BytesForAll ] as a member. I received a DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme 2006 IGCBP'06 scholarship and participated in core IG activities since then, my focus being IG issues for Pakistan, human rights violations and cyber crimes, global ICT4D low-cost access and the global digital commons (with a focus on Asia). A key subject of my advocacy was the issue about Patenting the Internet and I have deliberated on various platforms in the region on this issue. Currently I am co-authoring/editing a document on the Asia Commons [ http://www.asia-commons.net & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Commons ] that will serve as guidance to the Asian community with respect to the Digital Commons in Asia, their contributions and curation of the Public Domain, Countering Intellectual Property Rights Propaganda, Access to Knowledge/Open Publishing, Free and Open Source Software, Grey Market Economics, Internet Governance. The proceedings of Asia Commons can be viewed through the following link: http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Main_Page There is also space for realizing the Universal Commons of Human Beings where the Internet can be prevented from being patented, protecting our rights on the Internet, keeping it open and free in terms of End-to-End networking and countering the IPR propaganda. This forum proves to be just the answer to these issues and much more. We want to bring to IGF the Asian civil society perspectives on IPR, and defense of the Digital Commons from our region, you will be able to read that anticipation in "Asia Commons Learning Guide And The Way Ahead" http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Learning_Document and in the meantime. I am not alone; there are various issues, actors and activities that are a part of this effort and I would like to represent these on this forum to the IGF. I look forward to contributing effectively. If required, I would like to volunteer for the NomCom as a first step. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumnus -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vittorio Bertola' Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. Wait a minute, Vittorio. You are still a co-coordinator (even if at this stage a little reluctant one) till we have the new co-coordinator. :) We may need to consult on some issues during the process, so Id like it best if you stayed out of the nomcom. As for co-coordinator elections, as you know, we now have a voting software, and ill quickly get down to work on it. Thanks. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 01:59:19 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:59:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080318052620.ACDEBE2F53@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <47DED638.6060501@rits.org.br> <20080318052620.ACDEBE2F53@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Just back from Safari, now caught up with all threads. On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Parminder wrote: > > And yes, nomcom should give due weight-age and if needed priority to > nominations by other CS groups. But unfortunately there arent many who will > be doing such a nomination process. It is for this reason that even if with > a thin, and somewhat shaky, base, IGC which (to a considerable extent) fills > in the CS vacuum in the IG space Correct! IF and only IF one ignores the hundreds of other CS bodies working on IG issues around the world (I gave several dozen examples ~ a month ago IIRC). Even the IGP seems now to consider the "Internet technical community" as CS in this blog: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/3/10/3572625.html "This should raise a flag for civil society (e.g., individuals, small business, Internet technical community)" In other words, no "vacuum" exists. -- 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 Tue Mar 18 02:46:01 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:16:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47df5758.1487460a.669e.1bb8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20080318064610.448AEE301F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Fouad is one of those who have joined the IGC in the last 24 hours after I sent out an email to CS participants at Athens inviting them to join the IGC. Welcome Fouad, and all others who have joined. I expect at least a few more to join... Meanwhile, I must inform the new members that they will be eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their acceptance email) only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC positions, including nomcom etc... I am sure you will appreciate the logic of this rule. So welcome once again, and thanks for sharing about all the interesting activities you are involved in.. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouad Riaz Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:17 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Hi Everyone, > > My name is Fouad Bajwa and I am new to this list, thanks to Parminder for > inviting me to join. Just as a brief introduction, my engagement with IG > with a particular focus on ICT4D and Free and Open Source Software/Access > to > Knowledge began many years ago and participation in the WSIS was part of > our > efforts. > > I bring with me a background spanned over more than a decade of working in > the government, academia, civil society and private sector. Advocacy, > online > journalism and ICT4D reporting & analysis have been a parallel activity > for > me throughout my career and I have been contributing to the BytesForAll > South Asia Network [ http://www.bytesforall.net & > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BytesForAll ] as a member. > > I received a DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building > Programme > 2006 IGCBP'06 scholarship and participated in core IG activities since > then, > my focus being IG issues for Pakistan, human rights violations and cyber > crimes, global ICT4D low-cost access and the global digital commons (with > a > focus on Asia). > > A key subject of my advocacy was the issue about Patenting the Internet > and > I have deliberated on various platforms in the region on this issue. > Currently I am co-authoring/editing a document on the Asia Commons [ > http://www.asia-commons.net & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Commons ] > that will serve as guidance to the Asian community with respect to the > Digital Commons in Asia, their contributions and curation of the Public > Domain, Countering Intellectual Property Rights Propaganda, Access to > Knowledge/Open Publishing, Free and Open Source Software, Grey Market > Economics, Internet Governance. The proceedings of Asia Commons can be > viewed through the following link: > http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Main_Page > > There is also space for realizing the Universal Commons of Human Beings > where the Internet can be prevented from being patented, protecting our > rights on the Internet, keeping it open and free in terms of End-to-End > networking and countering the IPR propaganda. This forum proves to be just > the answer to these issues and much more. > > We want to bring to IGF the Asian civil society perspectives on IPR, and > defense of the Digital Commons from our region, you will be able to read > that anticipation in "Asia Commons Learning Guide And The Way Ahead" > http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Learning_Document and in > the meantime. I am not alone; there are various issues, actors and > activities that are a part of this effort and I would like to represent > these on this forum to the IGF. > > I look forward to contributing effectively. If required, I would like to > volunteer for the NomCom as a first step. > > Best Regards > > Fouad Bajwa > DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumnus > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vittorio Bertola' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > Wait a minute, Vittorio. You are still a co-coordinator (even if at this > stage a little reluctant one) till we have the new co-coordinator. :) > > We may need to consult on some issues during the process, so Id like it > best > if you stayed out of the nomcom. > > As for co-coordinator elections, as you know, we now have a voting > software, > and ill quickly get down to work on it. Thanks. > > Parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 18 02:52:34 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:22:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080318065243.90B59A6C2C@smtp2.electricembers.net> > I think with avri volunteering to pull this together we should be able > to > act decisively and manage to come up with representative nominations We have 11 till now (ie if Vittorio accepts my request to opt out) Milton Mueller Jeremy Malcolm Suresh Ramasubramanian Jeremy Shtern Brett Fausett Robert Guerra Carlos Afonso Schombe Baudouin Ian Peter Lee McKnight Maja Anjelkovic 14 more needed. Pl give your names (there is 4 in 5 chance you will anyway not make it :)) On the other hand, if we don't get 14 more name the process may be jeopardized. Thanks Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:54 AM > To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > ok, since we need more names and I've been nudging in this direction, > I'll jump in the nomcom pool (and hope to be booted out). what are we up > to by now? who's keeping track? 1/3rd of way there? > > 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 03/17/08 5:13 PM >>> > Count me in for a nomcom pool as well > > I think with avri volunteering to pull this together we should be able > to > act decisively and manage to come up with representative nominations > > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > Sent: 18 March 2008 07:36 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere > > to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative > > to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process > > and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the > > different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies > which > > are involved in the IG debate). > > > > Otherwise this might lead to an endless imbroglio (Vittorio knows the > > meaning of the word...) and we better stick to Vittorio's suggestion. > > > > Probably the nomcom thing might become so troublesome that we might > > overshoot all deadlines and end up nominating no one, or do so with a > > lot of disagreements. Let us be careful (but we also need to act > > quickly...). > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > > >> You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's > position > > >> below: > > >> > > >> Adam Peake: > > >>> The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 > be > > >>> included on any list of candidates with a note to say the caucus > > >>> would support their continued membership of the MAG should the SG > > >>> find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The five > > >>> (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. > > >> > > >> Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this > > rule. > > >> As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw > out > > and > > >> who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support > all > > >> current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. > It > > >> also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on > > >> existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. > > > > > > Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: > you > > > have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who > could do > > > this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus > on a > > > couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just > to > > > be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected > from > > > the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny. > > > > > > Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At > Large > > > elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the > > > people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis > of > > > its top-down nature :) > > > > > > My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members > > > should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So > why > > > pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been > > > playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future > > > credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? > > > > > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date: > > 17/03/2008 10:48 > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date: > 17/03/2008 > 10:48 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From phi.schmidt at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 02:55:37 2008 From: phi.schmidt at gmail.com (philipp schmidt) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:55:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080318064610.448AEE301F@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <47df5758.1487460a.669e.1bb8@mx.google.com> <20080318064610.448AEE301F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7406b4f80803172355m274395b6m4d163c40021a5109@mail.gmail.com> Thank you for the invitation Parminder. My name is Jan Philipp Schmidt and I am based at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa, where I manage a research group working on open innovation in higher education. I am also involved in a number of civil society organisations, including Freedom To Innovate South Africa and currently investigating opportunities for setting up a non-profit organisation that will connect the individual researchers working on A2K issues in the country. I am a bit overwhelmed by the amount of traffic on this list and just trying to keep up for now. The voting rule makes a lot of sense. Best, P On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > Fouad is one of those who have joined the IGC in the last 24 hours after I > sent out an email to CS participants at Athens inviting them to join the > IGC. Welcome Fouad, and all others who have joined. I expect at least a > few > more to join... > > > Meanwhile, I must inform the new members that they will be eligible for > voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their acceptance email) > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC positions, > including nomcom etc... I am sure you will appreciate the logic of this > rule. > > So welcome once again, and thanks for sharing about all the interesting > activities you are involved in.. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fouad Riaz Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:17 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > My name is Fouad Bajwa and I am new to this list, thanks to Parminder > for > > inviting me to join. Just as a brief introduction, my engagement with IG > > with a particular focus on ICT4D and Free and Open Source > Software/Access > > to > > Knowledge began many years ago and participation in the WSIS was part of > > our > > efforts. > > > > I bring with me a background spanned over more than a decade of working > in > > the government, academia, civil society and private sector. Advocacy, > > online > > journalism and ICT4D reporting & analysis have been a parallel activity > > for > > me throughout my career and I have been contributing to the BytesForAll > > South Asia Network [ http://www.bytesforall.net & > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BytesForAll ] as a member. > > > > I received a DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building > > Programme > > 2006 IGCBP'06 scholarship and participated in core IG activities since > > then, > > my focus being IG issues for Pakistan, human rights violations and cyber > > crimes, global ICT4D low-cost access and the global digital commons > (with > > a > > focus on Asia). > > > > A key subject of my advocacy was the issue about Patenting the Internet > > and > > I have deliberated on various platforms in the region on this issue. > > Currently I am co-authoring/editing a document on the Asia Commons [ > > http://www.asia-commons.net & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Commons] > > that will serve as guidance to the Asian community with respect to the > > Digital Commons in Asia, their contributions and curation of the Public > > Domain, Countering Intellectual Property Rights Propaganda, Access to > > Knowledge/Open Publishing, Free and Open Source Software, Grey Market > > Economics, Internet Governance. The proceedings of Asia Commons can be > > viewed through the following link: > > http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Main_Page > > > > There is also space for realizing the Universal Commons of Human Beings > > where the Internet can be prevented from being patented, protecting our > > rights on the Internet, keeping it open and free in terms of End-to-End > > networking and countering the IPR propaganda. This forum proves to be > just > > the answer to these issues and much more. > > > > We want to bring to IGF the Asian civil society perspectives on IPR, and > > defense of the Digital Commons from our region, you will be able to read > > that anticipation in "Asia Commons Learning Guide And The Way Ahead" > > http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Learning_Document and > in > > the meantime. I am not alone; there are various issues, actors and > > activities that are a part of this effort and I would like to represent > > these on this forum to the IGF. > > > > I look forward to contributing effectively. If required, I would like to > > volunteer for the NomCom as a first step. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Fouad Bajwa > > DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumnus > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:03 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vittorio Bertola' > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > > > Wait a minute, Vittorio. You are still a co-coordinator (even if at this > > stage a little reluctant one) till we have the new co-coordinator. :) > > > > We may need to consult on some issues during the process, so Id like it > > best > > if you stayed out of the nomcom. > > > > As for co-coordinator elections, as you know, we now have a voting > > software, > > and ill quickly get down to work on it. Thanks. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Philipp Schmidt University of the Western Cape, South Africa United Nations University MERIT E: phi.schmidt at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 18 02:58:51 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:28:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080318064610.448AEE301F@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080318065859.8075767828@smtp1.electricembers.net> > sent out an email to CS participants at Athens Sorry, Rio, not Athens. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Fouad Riaz Bajwa' > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > Fouad is one of those who have joined the IGC in the last 24 hours after I > sent out an email to CS participants at Athens inviting them to join the > IGC. Welcome Fouad, and all others who have joined. I expect at least a > few > more to join... > > > Meanwhile, I must inform the new members that they will be eligible for > voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their acceptance email) > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC positions, > including nomcom etc... I am sure you will appreciate the logic of this > rule. > > So welcome once again, and thanks for sharing about all the interesting > activities you are involved in.. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fouad Riaz Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:17 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > My name is Fouad Bajwa and I am new to this list, thanks to Parminder > for > > inviting me to join. Just as a brief introduction, my engagement with IG > > with a particular focus on ICT4D and Free and Open Source > Software/Access > > to > > Knowledge began many years ago and participation in the WSIS was part of > > our > > efforts. > > > > I bring with me a background spanned over more than a decade of working > in > > the government, academia, civil society and private sector. Advocacy, > > online > > journalism and ICT4D reporting & analysis have been a parallel activity > > for > > me throughout my career and I have been contributing to the BytesForAll > > South Asia Network [ http://www.bytesforall.net & > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BytesForAll ] as a member. > > > > I received a DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building > > Programme > > 2006 IGCBP'06 scholarship and participated in core IG activities since > > then, > > my focus being IG issues for Pakistan, human rights violations and cyber > > crimes, global ICT4D low-cost access and the global digital commons > (with > > a > > focus on Asia). > > > > A key subject of my advocacy was the issue about Patenting the Internet > > and > > I have deliberated on various platforms in the region on this issue. > > Currently I am co-authoring/editing a document on the Asia Commons [ > > http://www.asia-commons.net & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Commons > ] > > that will serve as guidance to the Asian community with respect to the > > Digital Commons in Asia, their contributions and curation of the Public > > Domain, Countering Intellectual Property Rights Propaganda, Access to > > Knowledge/Open Publishing, Free and Open Source Software, Grey Market > > Economics, Internet Governance. The proceedings of Asia Commons can be > > viewed through the following link: > > http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Main_Page > > > > There is also space for realizing the Universal Commons of Human Beings > > where the Internet can be prevented from being patented, protecting our > > rights on the Internet, keeping it open and free in terms of End-to-End > > networking and countering the IPR propaganda. This forum proves to be > just > > the answer to these issues and much more. > > > > We want to bring to IGF the Asian civil society perspectives on IPR, and > > defense of the Digital Commons from our region, you will be able to read > > that anticipation in "Asia Commons Learning Guide And The Way Ahead" > > http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Learning_Document and > in > > the meantime. I am not alone; there are various issues, actors and > > activities that are a part of this effort and I would like to represent > > these on this forum to the IGF. > > > > I look forward to contributing effectively. If required, I would like to > > volunteer for the NomCom as a first step. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Fouad Bajwa > > DiploFoundation IGCBP'06 Alumnus > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:03 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vittorio Bertola' > > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > > Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > > > > Wait a minute, Vittorio. You are still a co-coordinator (even if at this > > stage a little reluctant one) till we have the new co-coordinator. :) > > > > We may need to consult on some issues during the process, so Id like it > > best > > if you stayed out of the nomcom. > > > > As for co-coordinator elections, as you know, we now have a voting > > software, > > and ill quickly get down to work on it. Thanks. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 18 03:30:54 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:00:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] noncom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DF6FAE.9070505@itforchange.net> I volunteer to be member of the noncom for mag candidates selection Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Mar 18 09:20:21 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:20:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP Message-ID: There is a video of Bob's talk, will post URL soon. Bob is advocating for local public ownership of Internet infrastructure, treating access as a basic public service like sewers or water. A separation of apps/services from infrastructure, with the infrastructure envisioned as a local mesh apps ride on top of, is what he is imagining. I'm skeptical of how this might work, but we may have a memo on a greenfield layout along these lines before long. And before everyone dismisses Bob as a dreamer, he previously dreamt up e spreadsheets begetting the pc revolution, and then home networks and NATs - of course with others too - so at least some of his dreams become real. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/18/08 1:09 AM >>> > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > workshop. > > Lee Thanks. Will like to know about his critique and his model. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:21 PM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from > > Parminder, everyone, > > I'm hosting Bob Frankston today, the e-spreadsheets, NATs/home nets > co-inventor. > > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > workshop. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/17/08 12:42 AM >>> > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest > with > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue. > Connects IG > to 'development' as little else does. I would say that this is the real > 'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG. > > And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is the > main > agenda at the IGF. > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM > > To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and > extrapolation > > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or > > could > > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have > been > > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for > Internet > > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available > off > > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online > > filing > > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus > > quicker > > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some > form > > of > > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. > (Should > > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent > a > > tax > > on those least able to pay?) > > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest > with > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > > affirming, > > supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with > > governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches > that > > flow from this. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > and > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > > rather than on the order of > > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > bank > > > account. > > > > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue > of > > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the > > North, > > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more > > markets > > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor > agencies, > > including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, > as > > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and > > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first > from a > > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) > > rather > > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force. > > > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue > here, > > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use > the > > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to > be > > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market > > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well > > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really > beyond > > me. > > > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep > disappearing > > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) > from > > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details > are > > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in > IG > > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the > > moment > > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > > important > > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that > governance > > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. > > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues > - of > > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against > either > > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or > plainly, > > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, > how > > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, > what > > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front > in > > IG > > area... and such. > > > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased > representation > > on > > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a > > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum > in > > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of > exactly > > > what is being "governed"... > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > and > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > > rather than on the order of > > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > bank > > > account. > > > > > > MG > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in > Europe: > > > good news from Sweden > > > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > > Internet subscription is a > > > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a > society > > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > > government > > > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > > > -- > > > Vera Franz > > > Program Manager > > > Information Program > > > > > > Open Society Foundation > > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > > London W6 0LE > > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete > it > > > and do not make use of or copy it. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > A2k mailing list > > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 18 09:28:45 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:58:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03e901c888fb$ffbe75a0$ff3b60e0$@net> Well yes, he's a visionary besides being a dreamer. And he doesn't exactly like the idea of NAT these days, I think :) A lot of what he advocates is unbundling taken to its extreme, shall we say, combined with extending the concept of muni wifi, apartment buildings wired for ethernet the way they are for power, etc. I don't get the apps separate from infrastructure part - they already are, with the web and web 2.0 (when done right) - but Bob's ideas are sometimes way too arcane for me. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:50 PM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP > > There is a video of Bob's talk, will post URL soon. > > Bob is advocating for local public ownership of Internet infrastructure, > treating access as a basic public service like sewers or water. A > separation of apps/services from infrastructure, with the > infrastructure > envisioned as a local mesh apps ride on top of, is what he is imagining. > > I'm skeptical of how this might work, but we may have a memo on a > greenfield layout along these lines before long. And before everyone > dismisses Bob as a dreamer, he previously dreamt up e spreadsheets > begetting the pc revolution, and then home networks and NATs - of > course > with others too - so at least some of his dreams become real. > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/18/08 1:09 AM >>> > > > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > > workshop. > > > > Lee > > Thanks. Will like to know about his critique and his model. Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:21 PM > > To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on > IPenforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from > > > > Parminder, everyone, > > > > I'm hosting Bob Frankston today, the e-spreadsheets, NATs/home nets > > co-inventor. > > > > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > > workshop. > > > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/17/08 12:42 AM >>> > > > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > > Internet > > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" > of > a > > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to > the > > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public > interest > > with > > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > > > I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue. > > Connects IG > > to 'development' as little else does. I would say that this is the > real > > 'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG. > > > > And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is > the > > main > > agenda at the IGF. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM > > > To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > > enforcement/ISP > > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and > > extrapolation > > > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > > > > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct > (or > > > could > > > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments > have > > been > > > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for > > Internet > > > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only > available > > off > > > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards > online > > > filing > > > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus > > > quicker > > > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > > > > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > > > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure > some > > form > > > of > > > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. > > (Should > > > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > > > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) > represent > > a > > > tax > > > on those least able to pay?) > > > > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > > Internet > > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" > of > a > > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to > the > > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public > interest > > with > > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > > > > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > > > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > > > affirming, > > > supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with > > > governments and others to determine the policy/programming > approaches > > that > > > flow from this. > > > > > > MG > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > > enforcement/ISP > > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > > and > > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated > as > > a > > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean > air > > > > rather than on the order of > > > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > > bank > > > > account. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > > > > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > > > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an > issue > > of > > > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > > > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in > the > > > North, > > > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and > more > > > markets > > > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor > > agencies, > > > including many international NGOs, through control over purse > strings, > > as > > > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy > and > > > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > > > > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first > > from a > > > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) > > > rather > > > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive > force. > > > > > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue > > here, > > > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use > > the > > > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this > to > > be > > > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market > > > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public > well > > > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really > > beyond > > > me. > > > > > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep > > disappearing > > > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) > > from > > > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program > details > > are > > > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front > in > > IG > > > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But > the > > > moment > > > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > > > important > > > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that > > governance > > > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit > funny. > > > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > > > > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive > issues > > - of > > > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against > > either > > > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or > > plainly, > > > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > > > > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, > > how > > > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we > are, > > what > > > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS > front > > in > > > IG > > > area... and such. > > > > > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased > > representation > > > on > > > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to > a > > > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS > vacuum > > in > > > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > > > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of > > exactly > > > > what is being "governed"... > > > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > > and > > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated > as > > a > > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean > air > > > > rather than on the order of > > > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a > > bank > > > > account. > > > > > > > > MG > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in > > Europe: > > > > good news from Sweden > > > > > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights > has > > > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > > > Internet subscription is a > > > > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a > > society > > > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > > > government > > > > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal." > > > > > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Vera Franz > > > > Program Manager > > > > Information Program > > > > > > > > Open Society Foundation > > > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > > > London W6 0LE > > > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is > protected > > > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, > delete > > it > > > > and do not make use of or copy it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > A2k mailing list > > > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Mar 18 09:35:26 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:35:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080318052627.CBB9C2400168@mx.rits.org.br> References: <20080318052627.CBB9C2400168@mx.rits.org.br> Message-ID: <47DFC51E.8030401@rits.org.br> Dear Parm and all, Parminder wrote: > >> We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere >> to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative >> to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process >> and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the >> different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies which >> are involved in the IG debate). >> > > Carlos > > I think the nomcom will have to do more than 'consolidate a list of names' > as reach it from various quarters. It is has to do 'selection', there is no > other choice. (I did propose consideration of the alternative of direct > voting a few days back.) I understand this as consolidating and facilitating the process. Any submission of candidates would be part of a list regularly updated and submitted to the caucus for opinions and review. Any decision on the part of the nomcom regarding names which would stay or go would have to be first reviewed by the caucus. > > And what do you mean by ' a list of names generated by the IGC'. Nomcom is > THE process to generate such a list. Or do you mean anyone from within or > outside who self-nominates, or someone else nominates her, automatically > forms this list.... I don't think we are looking at that. Forwarding a huge > list of all willing persons to the SG will just mean we give up all our > selection rights and leave it entirely to the SG. I don't think this is what > most people here want... "Generated" in the above sense, ie, grouping together all submissions, be then individual, from constituencies other than this caucus, regional cauci, and the ones from this caucus. No candidate of any kind will be rejected unilaterally by the nomcom. > > And yes, nomcom should give due weight-age and if needed priority to > nominations by other CS groups. But unfortunately there arent many who will > be doing such a nomination process. It is for this reason that even if with > a thin, and somewhat shaky, base, IGC which (to a considerable extent) fills > in the CS vacuum in the IG space should consider these task of CS > representation with a great deal of seriousness and sense of responsibility. Any decision, as I said, ought to be submitted to this caucus first for approval. Regarding the final list to be submitted, I understand there is an online election mechanism being tested (just read in a recent msg from you)? How would this be used? Who would vote? Here in LA&C caucus we are trying a similar process, but decisions will be by the entire caucus through a proven online voting mechanism (run by NIC.br and which has been used already by NCUC and others). The mail list itself is the nomcom, and there is a facilitator to organize, consolidate and put the final list to an online voting mechanism -- the caucus (consisting of people subscribed to the alc-cmsi list) is the electoral college, and we have been insisting that people join the caucus' list to participate in the voting process; people which are not in the caucus can be nominated as well. This is not a perfect process, particularly because it is being basically conducted in Spanish, and several countries, particularly in the Caribbean, do not speak Spanish. We are trying to bring people from the Caribbean as candidates. The facilitator (currently me, c.a.) is not and will not be a candidate. This way, if there is any "manipulation" ;), the entire caucus is to blame. frt rgds --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 11:14:13 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:14:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c8890a$ba306070$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> I'm a bit hazy on how it has been working out in the last while but as I understand it the government of British Columbia instituted a province wide program for smaller communities which was based on precisely the model mentioned below... That is the Province aggregated its purchase of Internet service into the smaller communities (they represented anywhere from 40% up of overall service). Through this aggregation on a Province wide basis they were able to negotiate highly favourable terms with a single carrier to allow the creation of points of presence in all interested communities. The communities in turn were encouraged and supported in developing local ISP's to manage the service (they ranged from NGO's through public agencies owned by the municipal authorities through to private companies). They were provided with the Internet acess at a very favourable cost and then were free to contract with whomever they wished at whatever prices they could negotiate for the range of services (including muni-wifi) tiered on top of the basic access including municipal services, fee for service applications for customers and so on. Garth Graham probably knows more about this but it has proven I think, very successful in ensuring a very wide distribution of broadband access throughout the province. Internet governance in the public interest? MG -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: March 18, 2008 6:20 AM To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP There is a video of Bob's talk, will post URL soon. Bob is advocating for local public ownership of Internet infrastructure, treating access as a basic public service like sewers or water. A separation of apps/services from infrastructure, with the infrastructure envisioned as a local mesh apps ride on top of, is what he is imagining. I'm skeptical of how this might work, but we may have a memo on a greenfield layout along these lines before long. And before everyone dismisses Bob as a dreamer, he previously dreamt up e spreadsheets begetting the pc revolution, and then home networks and NATs - of course with others too - so at least some of his dreams become real. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/18/08 1:09 AM >>> > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > workshop. > > Lee Thanks. Will like to know about his critique and his model. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:21 PM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP > liability in Europe: good news from > > Parminder, everyone, > > I'm hosting Bob Frankston today, the e-spreadsheets, NATs/home nets > co-inventor. > > Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own > special style, questioning public and private roles in varying > geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. > We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that > workshop. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/17/08 12:42 AM >>> > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest > with > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue. > Connects IG to 'development' as little else does. I would say that > this is the real > 'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG. > > And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is the > main agenda at the IGF. > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM > > To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and > extrapolation > > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments... > > > > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or > > could > > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have > been > > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for > Internet > > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available > off > > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online > > filing of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews > > and thus quicker > > access to refunds where appropriate and so on). > > > > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public > > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some > form > > of > > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. > (Should > > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information > > particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent > a > > tax > > on those least able to pay?) > > > > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet > > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with > Internet > > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a > > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the > > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest > with > > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this. > > > > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance > > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of > > affirming, supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and > > working with governments and others to determine the > > policy/programming approaches > that > > flow from this. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein' > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP > enforcement/ISP > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > and > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > > rather than on the order of a discretionary service such as for > > > example cable television or a > bank > > > account. > > > > > > > Thanks Mike for pointing to this... > > > > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a > > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue > of > > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity > > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the > > North, > > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more > > markets for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through > > donor > agencies, > > including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, > as > > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and > > practice frameworks for ICTD. > > > > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first > from a > > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) > > rather than civil society, which is normally considered a > > progressive force. > > > > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue > here, > > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use > the > > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to > be > > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market > > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well > > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really > beyond > > me. > > > > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep > disappearing > > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) > from > > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details > are > > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in > IG > > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the > > moment > > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as > > important issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us > > that > governance > > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny. > > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.) > > > > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues > - of > > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against > either > > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or > plainly, > > what Meryem called as 'inertia games. > > > > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, > how > > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, > what > > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front > in > > IG > > area... and such. > > > > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased > representation > > on > > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a > > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum > in > > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP > > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden > > > > > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet > > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of > exactly > > > what is being "governed"... > > > > > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is > > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden > and > > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as > a > > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"), > > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air > > > rather than on the order of a discretionary service such as for > > > example cable television or a > bank > > > account. > > > > > > MG > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] > > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz > > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM > > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list > > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in > Europe: > > > good news from Sweden > > > > > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the > > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet > > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has > > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an > > > Internet subscription is a wide-reaching measure that could have > > > serious repercussions in a > society > > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The > > > government has, because of this, decided not to pursue this > > > proposal." > > > > > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of > > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily. > > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd > > > > > > -- > > > Vera Franz > > > Program Manager > > > Information Program > > > > > > Open Society Foundation > > > 100, Cambridge Grove > > > London W6 0LE > > > phone +44 20 7031 0219 > > > fax +44 20 7031 0247 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message might contain confidential information and is protected > > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete > it > > > and do not make use of or copy it. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > A2k mailing list > > > A2k at lists.essential.org > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981! > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 18 12:09:50 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:09:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> Message-ID: if you think what I'm trying to suggest is top down then I'm not explaining myself very well. Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a much more principled approach. Trying to be strategic in a process no one understands probably isn't smart. (and as one potential nomcom member is perhaps threatening me... I'd best shut up :-) I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what we're doing or submit names independently. Adam >Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >>You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position >>below: >> >>Adam Peake: >>>The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 >>>be included on any list of candidates with a note to say the >>>caucus would support their continued membership of the MAG should >>>the SG find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The >>>five (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list. >> >>Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule. >>As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out and >>who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all >>current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It >>also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on >>existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. > >Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: >you have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who >could do this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to >consensus on a couple of names, but then you discover that these two >names are just to be added on a slate of five others that were >already preselected from the top, and did not have to go through any >kind of public scrutiny. > >Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At >Large elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some >of the people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the >basis of its top-down nature :) > >My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members >should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So >why pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having >been playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future >credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general? > >Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom. > >Ciao, >-- >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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Mar 18 12:41:49 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:41:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Haven't had time recently for a daily entanglement with this thread, but FWIW I support the rather rough consensus for a clean refresh approach in which all nominees are treated equally. I don't see how we could proceed differently, and don't see this as being about trust or the lack thereof in any particular individuals, 'throwing out' people, etc. And like others who've addressed this, I fully expect that in the end a number of if not all incumbents will back. That said, I have a question. On 3/18/08 5:09 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. And the caucus should > make sure other interested groups know about the process and have the > opportunity to either participate in what we're doing or submit names > independently. I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be submitting names from elsewhere. The IGC served as a focal point and funnel for other CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, but WSIS is over and so is that coalition. And other CS groupings have and presumably will submit independently. If the main concerns people have been expressing are about nominees/representatives advocating IGC positions in the MAG and reporting back on the main trends there, why would we allocate scarce nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those roles? 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Mar 18 13:11:08 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:11:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Adam, and all, Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09, Adam Peake a écrit : > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a > much more principled approach. [...] > > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC. It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty comfortable to remind this as someone who entirely disagree on the nomcom process to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision when adopting the IGC charter, and still accordingly is never volunteering for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop. I'm with Diderot on this (and on many other issues as well:)) Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html). First rule: don't change the rules during the process (or, worse, retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law. > And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what > we're doing or submit names independently. I don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their acceptance email) only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC positions, including nomcom etc...". First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. If someone is proposed by another entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC. Best, Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Tue Mar 18 18:55:50 2008 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:55:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP In-Reply-To: <000201c8890a$ba306070$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <000201c8890a$ba306070$aa00a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: What the Government of British Columbia actually leveraged in exchange for Internet services in unserved rural and remote communities in BC was the out-sourcing of it's overall government networking needs to the prime telecommunications carrier in BC - Telus. It was a by-product of a public-private partnership (P3). Much of the details are on the web site of NetworkBC, the BC Government agency that negotiated and implemented the "Connecting Communities Agreement." NetWork BC is a dedicated project office, within the Ministry of Management Services, "created to work with British Columbia communities and the private sector to bridge the digital divide:" http://www.networkbc.ca/ Telus also has pages on this at "Connecting Communities:" http://about.telus.com/digitaldivide/index.html Connecting Communities has been successful in doing just that - connecting communities. But much of its success depends on the "no compete" sections of the agreement. Telus was not present in those communities because, as they had said, there was no business case to be there in such small markets. But small independent ISPs in BC knew very well that any success they had would prove that a "market" actually existed, causing Telus to follow them onto the ground, and thus blasting their capital investment, and the community learning about operating community-based broadband for local socio-economic development, out of existence. What happens after the overall outsourcing contract ends in 2009 isn't at all clear. Re Mike's question - Internet governance in the public interest? - the most interesting by-product of the Connecting Communities Agreement was the fostering by NetworkBC of what this list would call a CS organization, the British Columbia Community Connectivity Cooperative (BC3). It was intended to link all of the communities involved and allow for sharing of their experience. NetworkBC did this, in part, to provide political evidence that demand for broadband actually existed, thus justifying the P3 decision on political terms. Once the deal was done and the implementation was on track, the Government's support of BC3 was largely withdrawn ... and BC3 began to disappear. Like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, the last thing to go was the smile. The will to share community-based approaches to the uses of the Internet for socio- economic development is still there. But having the means to achieve that turns out to as important as the best of intentions. However, many of BC's rural and remote communities are inhabited by indigenous peoples. There is a First Nation Technology Council that does have access to external support, so that effective collaboration for broadband development does still occur among BC's First Nations communities. GG On 18-Mar-08, at 8:14 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > .... as I > understand it the government of British Columbia instituted a > province wide > program for smaller communities which was based on precisely the model > mentioned below... That is the Province aggregated its purchase of > Internet > service into the smaller communities (they represented anywhere > from 40% up > of overall service). Through this aggregation on a Province wide > basis they > were able to negotiate highly favourable terms with a single > carrier to > allow the creation of points of presence in all interested > communities. > > The communities in turn were encouraged and supported in developing > local > ISP's to manage the service (they ranged from NGO's through public > agencies > owned by the municipal authorities through to private companies). > They were > provided with the Internet access at a very favourable cost and > then were > free to contract with whomever they wished at whatever prices they > could > negotiate for the range of services (including muni-wifi) tiered on > top of > the basic access including municipal services, fee for service > applications > for customers and so on. > > Garth Graham probably knows more about this but it has proven I > think, very > successful in ensuring a very wide distribution of broadband access > throughout the province. > > Internet governance in the public interest? > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: March 18, 2008 6:20 AM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ > ISP > > > There is a video of Bob's talk, will post URL soon. > > Bob is advocating for local public ownership of Internet > infrastructure, > treating access as a basic public service like sewers or water. A > separation > of apps/services from infrastructure, with the infrastructure > envisioned as > a local mesh apps ride on top of, is what he is imagining. > > I'm skeptical of how this might work, but we may have a memo on a > greenfield > layout along these lines before long. And before everyone > dismisses Bob as > a dreamer, he previously dreamt up e spreadsheets begetting the pc > revolution, and then home networks and NATs - of course with others > too - so > at least some of his dreams become real. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 19 01:10:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:40:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080319051041.B114D679DC@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill and Meryem have raised the issue of whom does the IGC represent, and accordingly whether we should only nominate IGC members, or consider some outsiders as well. I had tried to raise and discuss this issue in my email dt 16th, which is enclosed. And it is certainly a very important issue. First, about Meryem's point I don't agree with IGC > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC. Which is somewhat allied to Bill's point > I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be > submitting > names from elsewhere. The IGC served as a focal point and funnel for > other > CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, but WSIS > is > over and so is that coalition. Here, I draw your attention to the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html) which not only makes the point of IGc's WSIS lineage but also in its mission statement stresses the point of being/ providing a forum for wider CS inputs, coordination of CS advocacy etc. And if there were still any ambiguity in this, the list of ‘objectives and tasks’ is quite clear about linkages to other CS groups, outreach to them, and even representing them in some way. In fact, 6 out of 8 points under ‘objectives and tasks’ speaks about this association with other CS groups. I think, as per the charter, IGC clearly looks at itself in some way as representing a wider CS constituency in IGC process and I think such issue-based cross representation is also the way to go in a network age, for the greatest effectiveness of CS. It is also important to see and understand such wider representation in a somewhat different, and more topical, context. We cant expect a global body of 40 to reserve five members for a group of 60 or so individuals, isn’t it. And we are actually asking for increased representation. In numbers, a group like ISOC (whatever be its stakeholder status) is much much bigger. Many NGOs and most CS networks are in fact much bigger. So, obviously our claim to the kind of representation we ask for can only be on the basis of being a kind of key CS front group (loosely put) in the IG arena, for a wider CS constituency, with which we should try to keep making connections, as per our charter. This we hardly ever do though, preferring to live in our splendid isolation. This needs to bother us, and we should take corrective steps, but not to throw away the semblance of this wider CS representative-ness, with which will be thrown away most of our legitimacy. This is why I spoke of IGC filling in a CS vacuum –with however thin and shaky base - in IG area (which McTim refutes), and trying to do a better job of it. This is also why issues of, what is CS, what CS we represent, how to bring ourselves in a closer alignment with wider CS constituencies ( involved in global policy arena) is an important issue – which many just refuse to discuss, and other consider all such discussions as some kind of a personal conspiracy that I and some others are trying to hatch in this group. This said, to address the practical issue raised by Bill why would we allocate scarce > nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those > roles? First, it is not very likely that many names from outside IGC will actually be suggested. Most people/ groups with a like-minded interest in IG, and interested in IGF processes, I understand are already in the IGC. Second, we can request any outsider, we wish to nominate, to get engaged with the group, at least in the period of the MAG membership, and if our selection is good, I expect the person to so get involved. In any case we will have core existing IGC members in the MAG, a few of them if they do the task of representing IGC in the MAG is more than enough. The most important issue is to keep the identity of IGC as the main group representing wider CS constituencies and interests intact, and further strengthen it. If we don’t, we will be doing it our own peril. I think these issues being central to IGC’s identity and representative-ness deserve a discussion here. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Adam, and all, > > Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a > > much more principled approach. > [...] > > > > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. > > Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC. > It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty comfortable > to remind this as someone who entirely disagree on the nomcom process > to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision when > adopting the IGC charter, and still accordingly is never volunteering > for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely > right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop. I'm with > Diderot on this (and on many other issues as well:)) > > Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be > recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All nomcom > participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from > selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html). > > First rule: don't change the rules during the process (or, worse, > retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law. > > > And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about > > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what > > we're doing or submit names independently. > > I don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder > recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be > eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their > acceptance email) > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC > positions, including nomcom etc...". > > First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG > nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the > accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. If someone is proposed > by another entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't > reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC. > > Best, > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:44:07 +0530 Size: 31974 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 19 01:14:19 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:44:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080319051427.A5BDAE3035@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All This is for your urgent attention. We still need 13 more volunteers for the MAG nomination process to even start. So please volunteer. Meanwhile we can keep discussing all the important point raised on the list about the MAG nomination process. 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Mar 19 08:39:46 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:39:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <20080319051041.B114D679DC@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080319051041.B114D679DC@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <093F4DD2-5D31-4D77-82B1-8AC134ABB413@ras.eu.org> Parminder, I think we have to make a distinction between : 1- the broader outreach of the IGC, and generally speaking, its general efforts to promote what it perceives as shared concerns and positions from civil society at large, according to its charters' vision, mission, objectives and tasks. I entirely agree with you on this, and this is provided by the charter anyway, as you pointed out. The consequence is that yes, this doesn't prevent IGC to recommend (e.g. for MAG membership), non current IGC members. Actually, if I remember well, this already happened during the first selection process. It's up to the nomcom to take or not into account, among the whole set of selection criteria, the prior engagement of the applicant with the IGC, depending on the applicant's overall profile and statement of intent. Obviously, once nominated by IGC and then selected by the UN SG, the MAG member must become engaged in the IGC (and in particular subscribed to its mailing list) at least during his/her MAG membership. and 2- the representation issue, in terms of commitments to the IGC from the eventually selected MAG members: being accountable to the IGC, promoting and defending the IGC positions, etc. If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what you've stated. My point is that any selected MAG member who is present on the IGC recommendation list sent to the UN SG should consider him/herself as representative of the IGC in terms of commitments, whether or not this person have also been proposed by another CS constituency. For instance, if person X is selected by the UN SG as MAG member, after having been recommended by IGC as well as by three other constituencies (or individuals) A, B, and C, X commits anyway 100% and is 100% accountable to IGC. And to ensure this, this commitment has to be indicated prior to any selection by IGC. Obviously, it is left to X's own ethics to make sure that IGC, A, B and C's interests and positions, as well as requirements in terms of commitment, are not in contradiction with each others. Last but not least, the stakeholders repartition of the MAG as well as the last IGC statement's demand that final selection made by UN SG clearly indicates what stakeholder group a MAG member is associated with, make it hardly compatible that a person nominated by IGC be also nominated by a constituency who presents itself in another stakeholder category than CS. Best, Meryem Le 19 mars 08 à 06:10, Parminder a écrit : > > > > > Bill and Meryem have raised the issue of whom does the IGC > represent, and accordingly whether we should only nominate IGC > members, or consider some outsiders as well. > > > > I had tried to raise and discuss this issue in my email dt 16th, > which is enclosed. And it is certainly a very important issue. > > > > First, about Meryem's point > > > > I don't agree with IGC > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC. > > > > Which is somewhat allied to Bill's point > > > > > I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be > > > submitting > > > names from elsewhere. The IGC served as a focal point and funnel > for > > > other > > > CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, > but WSIS > > > is > > > over and so is that coalition. > > > > Here, I draw your attention to the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/ > IGC-charter_final-061014.html) which not only makes the point of > IGc's WSIS lineage but also in its mission statement stresses the > point of being/ providing a forum for wider CS inputs, coordination > of CS advocacy etc. And if there were still any ambiguity in this, > the list of ‘objectives and tasks’ is quite clear about linkages to > other CS groups, outreach to them, and even representing them in > some way. In fact, 6 out of 8 points under ‘objectives and tasks’ > speaks about this association with other CS groups. > > > > I think, as per the charter, IGC clearly looks at itself in some > way as representing a wider CS constituency in IGC process… and I > think such issue-based cross representation is also the way to go > in a network age, for the greatest effectiveness of CS. > > > > It is also important to see and understand such wider > representation in a somewhat different, and more topical, context. > We cant expect a global body of 40 to reserve five members for a > group of 60 or so individuals, isn’t it. And we are actually asking > for increased representation. In numbers, a group like ISOC > (whatever be its stakeholder status) is much much bigger. Many NGOs > and most CS networks are in fact much bigger. So, obviously our > claim to the kind of representation we ask for can only be on the > basis of being a kind of key CS front group (loosely put) in the IG > arena, for a wider CS constituency, with which we should try to > keep making connections, as per our charter. This we hardly ever do > though, preferring to live in our splendid isolation. This needs to > bother us, and we should take corrective steps, but not to throw > away the semblance of this wider CS representative-ness, with which > will be thrown away most of our legitimacy. > > > > This is why I spoke of IGC filling in a CS vacuum –with however > thin and shaky base - in IG area (which McTim refutes), and trying > to do a better job of it. This is also why issues of, what is CS, > what CS we represent, how to bring ourselves in a closer alignment > with wider CS constituencies ( involved in global policy arena) is > an important issue – which many just refuse to discuss, and other > consider all such discussions as some kind of a personal conspiracy > that I and some others are trying to hatch in this group. > > > > This said, to address the practical issue raised by Bill > > > > why would we allocate scarce > > > nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those > > > roles? > > > > First, it is not very likely that many names from outside IGC will > actually be suggested. Most people/ groups with a like-minded > interest in IG, and interested in IGF processes, I understand are > already in the IGC. Second, we can request any outsider, we wish to > nominate, to get engaged with the group, at least in the period of > the MAG membership, and if our selection is good, I expect the > person to so get involved. In any case we will have core existing > IGC members in the MAG, a few of them if they do the task of > representing IGC in the MAG is more than enough. The most important > issue is to keep the identity of IGC as the main group representing > wider CS constituencies and interests intact, and further > strengthen it. If we don’t, we will be doing it our own peril. > > > > I think these issues being central to IGC’s identity and > representative-ness deserve a discussion here. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:41 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > Adam, and all, > > > > > > Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > > > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a > > > > much more principled approach. > > > [...] > > > > > > > > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. > > > > > > Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC. > > > It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty comfortable > > > to remind this as someone who entirely disagree on the nomcom > process > > > to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision when > > > adopting the IGC charter, and still accordingly is never > volunteering > > > for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely > > > right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop. I'm with > > > Diderot on this (and on many other issues as well:)) > > > > > > Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be > > > recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All nomcom > > > participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from > > > selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html). > > > > > > First rule: don't change the rules during the process (or, worse, > > > retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law. > > > > > > > And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about > > > > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what > > > > we're doing or submit names independently. > > > > > > I don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder > > > recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be > > > eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their > > > acceptance email) > > > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC > > > positions, including nomcom etc...". > > > > > > First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG > > > nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the > > > accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. If someone is proposed > > > by another entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't > > > reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC. > > > > > > Best, > > > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > De : "Parminder" > Date : 16 mars 2008 15:14:07 HNEC > À : , "'Jeanette Hofmann'" > , "'Milton L Mueller'" > Cc : "'Meryem Marzouki'" > Objet : RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > Répondre à : , "Parminder" > > > > > > I will like to offer a couple of points, in my personal capacity, > on this > very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG > nominations. > > The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central > point > here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard. > > First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in their > personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This is > meant as a > corrective to a possible situation where seats are allocated to > institutions, and whoever comes representing the concerned > institutions gets > to sit and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously > difficult to > implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most MAG > participants, no one really seriously believes that they completely > speak > only on basis of their personal convictions, without any reference > to the > stands and views of the groups they are known to be associated with. > > Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term 'personal > capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean that a MAG > member has no > representative-ness at all. As Milton colorfully described, this is > not an > invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You > don't sit > their because of any special personal attributes (that would be > elitist), > you are there in some representative capacity - whether of a > constituency, > or a set of ideals. > > However, especially for a CS member, since CS by definition is a > less-institutionalized category, I do agree that it is not possible > for a CS > member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an > element of > 'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability to CS values and > positions) > here. So, we should have some promises and processes for reporting > back, > representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of > 'personal > capacity' based representation. We need to find an in between > arrangement, > as Jeanette suggests. > > I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true representative' > positions > are coming as a (I think legitimate) reaction against the way most/ > some IGC > nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so > literally that > there has been very little if any 'representative-ness' character > in their > membership. > > There is another, important, angle here. When we make the demand to be > represented in MAG, and be represented in even greater number than > we are > now, we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what > and who > we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we a > collections 60 > something members who have signed on the IGC charter (each in her > personal > capacity). A discussion list would not mean anything in such a > context. A > group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity, would > still be just > that. So, obviously any merit in our claims comes from (some degree > of) our > 'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative- > ness' > cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG members. > > Another issue is whether we will nominate from among IGC members > alone. This > opens the issue of defining members. The charter defines membership > as those > who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among all IGC > e-list > participants. Or consider anyone who we may think is CS, and still > request a > certain degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member. > > In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a discussion > e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of those who are > subscribed > to the charter and (3)IGC is a kind of a front - or an interface - > of a > wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is > also > strongly implied in our charter. > > It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have some > basis and > legitimacy to expect that a couple of names we suggest to be > included in the > MAG. But for this while we should internally understand and affirm > this 'CS > front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS representation), > we should > also have some sense of what is the nature of that wider CS which > we may > represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have > consistently refused to engage in. > > So while we will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our > understanding that many/most CS members who have direct interest in > IGF do > in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to nominate > some who > may not do so at present. Generally, such people may be of a > relatively high > profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we > still > think they will be good MAG members. > > It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to keep > sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our choices are > right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they will, as may > regular IGC > member that become MAG members, will certainly push views beyond the > constraints of only the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some > distinction, one may expect that the existing IGC member nominees > to have a > much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star' outside-IGC CS > persons > that may get our backing. But the latter still shd do enough > interaction. > > Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in between > 'true > representative' of the IGC and some amount of 'personal capacity' > with a > broader accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am > misunderstood, I > am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this exclusive > 'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed MAG members > have > taken. And the situation should change, and change a lot. > > We should codify some processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS > nominees > that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in the > emails that have been posted. > > Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > Cc: Meryem Marzouki > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". > > > > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a > > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid > and > > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus > > changed its mind in the meantime? > > > > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should > > promote and defend the caucus positions > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they > > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual > capacity" but > > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require > that > > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to > > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? > > > > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What > would a > > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind > and kicks > > out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... > > > > > > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to > > apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own > position > > paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and > enjoyed > > unusually broad consensus. > > > > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more > > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively > > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's > > agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and > understand the > > positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to > agree on a > > common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the > nominee > > should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee > doesn't > > agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that > consensus > > in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. > > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not > helpful in > > a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus > depends > > on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of > views and, > > above all, to compromise. > > > > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all > caucus > > nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case > of a > > recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs > members > > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There > are other > > channels outside the reach of our rules. > > > > jeanette > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and > important > > > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more > carefully but > > > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> we have > > >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: > > >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of > course > > >> including those who have already been on the MAG > > >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent > > >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote > > >> within the MAG > > >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider > the > > >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the > > >> candidate has done so far > > >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the > > >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to > the > > >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as > > >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true > representatives of > > >> the IGC. > > >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following > the rules > > >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- > > >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. > Since the > > >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in > their > > >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC > > >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and > > >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > > > > > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom > process > > > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be > considered the > > > ground rules for the NomCom. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 19 09:55:45 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:25:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Postel Network Operator's Scholarship 2008 In-Reply-To: <47E0FA54.6000807@psg.com> References: <47E0FA54.6000807@psg.com> Message-ID: This would be very useful indeed for the more technically qualified civil society members around ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Randy Bush Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM Subject: Postel Network Operator's Scholarship 2008 To: Asia Pacific Net Ops , AfNOG , PacNOG , ALyC NOG , North American Network Operators Group Overview NANOG and ARIN have been been unique and successful cooperative fora for Internet builders in North America and other parts of the world. Senior practitioners from around the world contribute their time to NANOG and ARIN as presenters, teachers and trainers, to produce consistent non-commercial conferences of high-quality. Since 2007, the generosity of an anonymous donor and the administration of the Internet Society, have allowed NANOG and ARIN to provide financial support to a person from a developing country to participate in the October joint NANOG/ARIN meeting. The Postel Network Operator's Scholarship Committee cordially invite suitable applicants to apply for fellowship funding to participate in the October 2008 joint NANOG/ARIN meeting. Target Audience The Postel Network Operator's Scholarship targets personnel from developing countries who are actively involved in Internet development, in any of the following roles: * Engineers (Network Builders) * Operational and Infrastructure Support Personnel * Educators, Teachers, and Trainers Award Package Successful applicants will be provided with transportation to and from the meetings and a reasonable (local host standard) allowance for food and accommodation. In addition all fees for participation in the conferences, tutorials, and social events will be waived. The final grant size is determined according to final costs and available funding, and will be advised to successful applicants. Criteria for Selection The Postel Network Operator's Scholarship Committee will select the fellow according to following criteria. * Membership in the Target Audience listed above * Residency in a developing country * Demonstrated ability to utilize the experiences gained from NANOG/ARIN within their country, region, ... * Evaluation of an abstract of a presentation to be given at the meeting. Applicants from any part of the world will be considered. Fellowship Selection Committee The Fellowship Section Committee is a joint activity of the Steering Committee of NANOG and the Board of Trustees of ARIN. Application for Fellowships The deadline for application is 1 June 2008, and the awardee will be informed by 1 July 2008. To apply for the fellowship please read and submit your application via email to . Please be sure to include an abstract, and even possibly some slides, from the presentation you would give at the meetings. Thank you. randy, for the Fellowship Section Committee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 19 12:27:43 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:57:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: <093F4DD2-5D31-4D77-82B1-8AC134ABB413@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080319162801.D3D7CA6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Meryem > If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in > agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what you've > stated. > Me neither. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:10 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Parminder, > > I think we have to make a distinction between : > > 1- the broader outreach of the IGC, and generally speaking, its > general efforts to promote what it perceives as shared concerns and > positions from civil society at large, according to its charters' > vision, mission, objectives and tasks. I entirely agree with you on > this, and this is provided by the charter anyway, as you pointed out. > The consequence is that yes, this doesn't prevent IGC to recommend > (e.g. for MAG membership), non current IGC members. Actually, if I > remember well, this already happened during the first selection process. > It's up to the nomcom to take or not into account, among the whole > set of selection criteria, the prior engagement of the applicant with > the IGC, depending on the applicant's overall profile and statement > of intent. > Obviously, once nominated by IGC and then selected by the UN SG, the > MAG member must become engaged in the IGC (and in particular > subscribed to its mailing list) at least during his/her MAG membership. > > and > > 2- the representation issue, in terms of commitments to the IGC from > the eventually selected MAG members: being accountable to the IGC, > promoting and defending the IGC positions, etc. > > If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in > agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what you've > stated. > > My point is that any selected MAG member who is present on the IGC > recommendation list sent to the UN SG should consider him/herself as > representative of the IGC in terms of commitments, whether or not > this person have also been proposed by another CS constituency. > > For instance, if person X is selected by the UN SG as MAG member, > after having been recommended by IGC as well as by three other > constituencies (or individuals) A, B, and C, X commits anyway 100% > and is 100% accountable to IGC. And to ensure this, this commitment > has to be indicated prior to any selection by IGC. Obviously, it is > left to X's own ethics to make sure that IGC, A, B and C's interests > and positions, as well as requirements in terms of commitment, are > not in contradiction with each others. > > Last but not least, the stakeholders repartition of the MAG as well > as the last IGC statement's demand that final selection made by UN SG > clearly indicates what stakeholder group a MAG member is associated > with, make it hardly compatible that a person nominated by IGC be > also nominated by a constituency who presents itself in another > stakeholder category than CS. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 19 mars 08 à 06:10, Parminder a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Bill and Meryem have raised the issue of whom does the IGC > > represent, and accordingly whether we should only nominate IGC > > members, or consider some outsiders as well. > > > > > > > > I had tried to raise and discuss this issue in my email dt 16th, > > which is enclosed. And it is certainly a very important issue. > > > > > > > > First, about Meryem's point > > > > > > > > I don't agree with IGC > > > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC. > > > > > > > > Which is somewhat allied to Bill's point > > > > > > > > > I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be > > > > > submitting > > > > > names from elsewhere. The IGC served as a focal point and funnel > > for > > > > > other > > > > > CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, > > but WSIS > > > > > is > > > > > over and so is that coalition. > > > > > > > > Here, I draw your attention to the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > IGC-charter_final-061014.html) which not only makes the point of > > IGc's WSIS lineage but also in its mission statement stresses the > > point of being/ providing a forum for wider CS inputs, coordination > > of CS advocacy etc. And if there were still any ambiguity in this, > > the list of ‘objectives and tasks’ is quite clear about linkages to > > other CS groups, outreach to them, and even representing them in > > some way. In fact, 6 out of 8 points under ‘objectives and tasks’ > > speaks about this association with other CS groups. > > > > > > > > I think, as per the charter, IGC clearly looks at itself in some > > way as representing a wider CS constituency in IGC process and I > > think such issue-based cross representation is also the way to go > > in a network age, for the greatest effectiveness of CS. > > > > > > > > It is also important to see and understand such wider > > representation in a somewhat different, and more topical, context. > > We cant expect a global body of 40 to reserve five members for a > > group of 60 or so individuals, isn’t it. And we are actually asking > > for increased representation. In numbers, a group like ISOC > > (whatever be its stakeholder status) is much much bigger. Many NGOs > > and most CS networks are in fact much bigger. So, obviously our > > claim to the kind of representation we ask for can only be on the > > basis of being a kind of key CS front group (loosely put) in the IG > > arena, for a wider CS constituency, with which we should try to > > keep making connections, as per our charter. This we hardly ever do > > though, preferring to live in our splendid isolation. This needs to > > bother us, and we should take corrective steps, but not to throw > > away the semblance of this wider CS representative-ness, with which > > will be thrown away most of our legitimacy. > > > > > > > > This is why I spoke of IGC filling in a CS vacuum –with however > > thin and shaky base - in IG area (which McTim refutes), and trying > > to do a better job of it. This is also why issues of, what is CS, > > what CS we represent, how to bring ourselves in a closer alignment > > with wider CS constituencies ( involved in global policy arena) is > > an important issue – which many just refuse to discuss, and other > > consider all such discussions as some kind of a personal conspiracy > > that I and some others are trying to hatch in this group. > > > > > > > > This said, to address the practical issue raised by Bill > > > > > > > > why would we allocate scarce > > > > > nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those > > > > > roles? > > > > > > > > First, it is not very likely that many names from outside IGC will > > actually be suggested. Most people/ groups with a like-minded > > interest in IG, and interested in IGF processes, I understand are > > already in the IGC. Second, we can request any outsider, we wish to > > nominate, to get engaged with the group, at least in the period of > > the MAG membership, and if our selection is good, I expect the > > person to so get involved. In any case we will have core existing > > IGC members in the MAG, a few of them if they do the task of > > representing IGC in the MAG is more than enough. The most important > > issue is to keep the identity of IGC as the main group representing > > wider CS constituencies and interests intact, and further > > strengthen it. If we don’t, we will be doing it our own peril. > > > > > > > > I think these issues being central to IGC’s identity and > > representative-ness deserve a discussion here. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > > > > > Adam, and all, > > > > > > > > > > Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a > > > > > > much more principled approach. > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. > > > > > > > > > > Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC. > > > > > It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty comfortable > > > > > to remind this as someone who entirely disagree on the nomcom > > process > > > > > to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision when > > > > > adopting the IGC charter, and still accordingly is never > > volunteering > > > > > for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely > > > > > right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop. I'm with > > > > > Diderot on this (and on many other issues as well:)) > > > > > > > > > > Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be > > > > > recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All nomcom > > > > > participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from > > > > > selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html). > > > > > > > > > > First rule: don't change the rules during the process (or, worse, > > > > > retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law. > > > > > > > > > > > And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about > > > > > > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what > > > > > > we're doing or submit names independently. > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC > > > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder > > > > > recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be > > > > > eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their > > > > > acceptance email) > > > > > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC > > > > > positions, including nomcom etc...". > > > > > > > > > > First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG > > > > > nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the > > > > > accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. If someone is proposed > > > > > by another entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't > > > > > reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > De : "Parminder" > > Date : 16 mars 2008 15:14:07 HNEC > > À : , "'Jeanette Hofmann'" > > , "'Milton L Mueller'" > > Cc : "'Meryem Marzouki'" > > Objet : RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Répondre à : , "Parminder" > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to offer a couple of points, in my personal capacity, > > on this > > very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG > > nominations. > > > > The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central > > point > > here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard. > > > > First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in their > > personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This is > > meant as a > > corrective to a possible situation where seats are allocated to > > institutions, and whoever comes representing the concerned > > institutions gets > > to sit and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously > > difficult to > > implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most MAG > > participants, no one really seriously believes that they completely > > speak > > only on basis of their personal convictions, without any reference > > to the > > stands and views of the groups they are known to be associated with. > > > > Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term 'personal > > capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean that a MAG > > member has no > > representative-ness at all. As Milton colorfully described, this is > > not an > > invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You > > don't sit > > their because of any special personal attributes (that would be > > elitist), > > you are there in some representative capacity - whether of a > > constituency, > > or a set of ideals. > > > > However, especially for a CS member, since CS by definition is a > > less-institutionalized category, I do agree that it is not possible > > for a CS > > member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an > > element of > > 'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability to CS values and > > positions) > > here. So, we should have some promises and processes for reporting > > back, > > representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of > > 'personal > > capacity' based representation. We need to find an in between > > arrangement, > > as Jeanette suggests. > > > > I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true representative' > > positions > > are coming as a (I think legitimate) reaction against the way most/ > > some IGC > > nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so > > literally that > > there has been very little if any 'representative-ness' character > > in their > > membership. > > > > There is another, important, angle here. When we make the demand to be > > represented in MAG, and be represented in even greater number than > > we are > > now, we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what > > and who > > we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we a > > collections 60 > > something members who have signed on the IGC charter (each in her > > personal > > capacity). A discussion list would not mean anything in such a > > context. A > > group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity, would > > still be just > > that. So, obviously any merit in our claims comes from (some degree > > of) our > > 'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative- > > ness' > > cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG members. > > > > Another issue is whether we will nominate from among IGC members > > alone. This > > opens the issue of defining members. The charter defines membership > > as those > > who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among all IGC > > e-list > > participants. Or consider anyone who we may think is CS, and still > > request a > > certain degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member. > > > > In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a discussion > > e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of those who are > > subscribed > > to the charter and (3)IGC is a kind of a front - or an interface - > > of a > > wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is > > also > > strongly implied in our charter. > > > > It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have some > > basis and > > legitimacy to expect that a couple of names we suggest to be > > included in the > > MAG. But for this while we should internally understand and affirm > > this 'CS > > front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS representation), > > we should > > also have some sense of what is the nature of that wider CS which > > we may > > represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have > > consistently refused to engage in. > > > > So while we will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our > > understanding that many/most CS members who have direct interest in > > IGF do > > in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to nominate > > some who > > may not do so at present. Generally, such people may be of a > > relatively high > > profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we > > still > > think they will be good MAG members. > > > > It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to keep > > sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our choices are > > right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they will, as may > > regular IGC > > member that become MAG members, will certainly push views beyond the > > constraints of only the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some > > distinction, one may expect that the existing IGC member nominees > > to have a > > much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star' outside-IGC CS > > persons > > that may get our backing. But the latter still shd do enough > > interaction. > > > > Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in between > > 'true > > representative' of the IGC and some amount of 'personal capacity' > > with a > > broader accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am > > misunderstood, I > > am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this exclusive > > 'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed MAG members > > have > > taken. And the situation should change, and change a lot. > > > > We should codify some processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS > > nominees > > that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in the > > emails that have been posted. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > > Cc: Meryem Marzouki > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". > > > > > > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a > > > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > > > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid > > and > > > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus > > > changed its mind in the meantime? > > > > > > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should > > > promote and defend the caucus positions > > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they > > > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual > > capacity" but > > > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require > > that > > > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to > > > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? > > > > > > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What > > would a > > > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind > > and kicks > > > out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... > > > > > > > > > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to > > > apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own > > position > > > paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and > > enjoyed > > > unusually broad consensus. > > > > > > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more > > > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively > > > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's > > > agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and > > understand the > > > positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to > > agree on a > > > common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the > > nominee > > > should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee > > doesn't > > > agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that > > consensus > > > in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. > > > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not > > helpful in > > > a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus > > depends > > > on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of > > views and, > > > above all, to compromise. > > > > > > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all > > caucus > > > nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case > > of a > > > recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs > > members > > > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There > > are other > > > channels outside the reach of our rules. > > > > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and > > important > > > > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more > > carefully but > > > > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> we have > > > >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: > > > >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of > > course > > > >> including those who have already been on the MAG > > > >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent > > > >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote > > > >> within the MAG > > > >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider > > the > > > >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the > > > >> candidate has done so far > > > >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the > > > >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions > > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to > > the > > > >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as > > > >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true > > representatives of > > > >> the IGC. > > > >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following > > the rules > > > >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- > > > >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. > > Since the > > > >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in > > their > > > >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC > > > >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and > > > >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > > > > > > > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom > > process > > > > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be > > considered the > > > > ground rules for the NomCom. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Wed Mar 19 21:25:53 2008 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:25:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47E1BD21.8060307@isoc.be> I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain EURALO board member /Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen Belgium GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ http://www.isoc.be Parminder schreef: > > Hi All > > > > I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer for > the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and we > have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. > > > > We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. > > > > Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation can > go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from these > discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group for > clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on key > issues and information that are important for the nomcom to achieve > its purpose. > > > > Parminder > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: 2008-03-16 10:34 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Mar 20 14:45:22 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:45:22 +1100 Subject: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead Message-ID: <029401c88aba$91b44600$9db8ed0a@IAN> This is an excellent paper by Olivier Martin on this subject and also covering IPv4/v6 in some detail. I thoroughly recommend that everyone who involved themselves in the debate on this subject here read this paper as it explains the situation and the issues very well. HYPERLINK "http://www.ictconsulting.ch/reports/NEC2007-OHMartin.doc"http://www.ictcons ulting.ch/reports/NEC2007-OHMartin.doc Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release Date: 20/03/2008 09:48 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 20 18:06:10 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:06:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead In-Reply-To: <029401c88aba$91b44600$9db8ed0a@IAN> References: <029401c88aba$91b44600$9db8ed0a@IAN> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > This is an excellent paper by Olivier Martin on this subject and also > covering IPv4/v6 in some detail. I couldn't get past the 3rd sentence of the introduction, which is, to my knowledge, false. If I get time, i may read the rest. -- 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 Thu Mar 20 18:44:11 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:44:11 +1100 Subject: FW: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead Message-ID: <002b01c88adb$ee0428a0$e838ed0a@IAN> Well I do suggest struggle on McTim - you are dealing with a report from a well regarded CERN scientist with a long networking background based on a great degree of consultation with well regarded networking scentists in IETF and elsewhere. Be sure to view so that you can see the extensive references to back up his research. It's worth more than three sentences of your time and a more sophisticated rebuttal if you cannot follow the reasoning! http://www.ictconsulting.ch/reports/NEC2007-OHMartin.doc Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 21 March 2008 09:06 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is an excellent paper by Olivier Martin on this subject and also > > covering IPv4/v6 in some detail. > > I couldn't get past the 3rd sentence of the introduction, which is, to > my knowledge, false. > > If I get time, i may read the rest. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release Date: > 20/03/2008 09:48 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release Date: 20/03/2008 09:48 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release Date: 20/03/2008 09:48 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 20 19:52:51 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:52:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead In-Reply-To: References: <029401c88aba$91b44600$9db8ed0a@IAN> Message-ID: <20080320235251.GA19695@hserus.net> McTim [21/03/08 01:06 +0300]: >I couldn't get past the 3rd sentence of the introduction, which is, to >my knowledge, false. >If I get time, i may read the rest. Do read through it a bit more. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Mar 20 22:25:22 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Airwaves - 700 MHz Auction Winners Named Message-ID: Airwaves Auction Winners Named By JOHN DUNBAR – AP Ref.: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jo4wgpBEmdBAEBBUfbGycMzWGw-AD8VHH2AG0 WASHINGTON (AP) — The two largest cell phone companies dominated bidding in a record-setting government airwaves auction, according to results released Thursday. AT&T Inc. and Verizon Wireless combined to account for $16 billion of the $19.6 billion bid in the auction, an Associated Press analysis of Federal Communications Commission data shows. Verizon Wireless bid $9.4 billion and AT&T $6.6 billion. The results raised concern that the auction failed to attract any significant new competitors to the cellular telephone market to challenge the dominant companies. For example, Google Inc. was not among the winners, meaning the search engine giant will not be entering the wireless business. One new entrant, Frontier Wireless LLC, owned by direct broadcast satellite television company EchoStar Corp., won nearly enough licenses to create a nationwide footprint. Frontier bid $712 million, according to FCC data. The spectrum was made available thanks to the nationwide transition to digital broadcasting. The hope is that consumers will benefit from more advanced wireless services such as high-speed Internet access. The money raised will be used to help public safety programs and offset the federal budget deficit. Despite the dominance in the auction by the major cell providers, the FCC chairman was upbeat about the auction results. "A bidder other than a nationwide incumbent won a license in every market," Kevin Martin said. As a result, there is the potential for a "wireless third-pipe" competitor to emerge in every market across the nation. Broadband access is dominated by the major telecommunications and cable companies. Martin wants wireless to emerge as a third platform, creating competition. But Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, an advocacy group that supports greater access to communications services, said the auction failed in that regard because Verizon Communications Inc. already is a dominant provider of Internet access. "The prospect of a genuine third pipe competitor in the wireless world is now slim to none," he said. Until Thursday, the names of the bidders were kept anonymous in an effort to discourage collusion during the auction. Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. and British telecom giant Vodafone Group PLC, won nearly every license in the consumer-friendly "C block." The frequencies, which encompass about one-third of the spectrum at auction, are subject to "open access" provisions pushed by Martin. That means people on the network that is built can use whatever phones or software they wish. Google posted a bid for the C block licenses early in the auction, assuring that the open-access provision would be put in place, but the offer was not enough. Verizon Wireless won enough of the C-block licenses to cover every state but Alaska. The company said it was very pleased with the results, which will allow it to "continue to grow our business and data revenues." AT&T said it will have "quality spectrum available for new services covering 95 percent of the U.S. population," according to Ralph de la Vega, president and chief executive of the company's wireless unit. The third leading bidder was Qualcomm Inc., which pledged $1.03 billion. Included in that total is $472 million the company pledged toward the block designated for the creation of an emergency communications network. The bid was well under the FCC-required minimum of $1.3 billion, so Qualcomm's winning total comes to $558 million. The agency agreed to separate this D block from the rest of the auction so the winners could be announced. Not including that block, winning bids totaled $19.1 billion. Also Thursday, Martin said he had ordered an investigation by the FCC internal watchdog into the circumstances surrounding the failure of the block to attract a winning bid. Public interest groups asked the agency on Wednesday to investigate allegations about a meeting between Frontline Wireless LLC and its financial backers and a company called Cyren Call, created by Nextel Corp. co-founder Morgan O'Brien. Frontline was widely expected to bid on the public safety spectrum block. But the company dropped out before the auction began after failing to meet a minimum required payment. Cyren Call was acting as the agent for a nonprofit public safety trust that would share the network with the winning bidder. On the Net: DOCs & PDFs Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov/ -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 karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Mar 21 08:17:42 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:17:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <47E1BD21.8060307@isoc.be> References: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> <47E1BD21.8060307@isoc.be> Message-ID: <20080321121806.A61013443B1@mail.gn.apc.org> hi as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom karen At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. > >Rudi Vansnick >President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >EURALO board member >/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >Belgium >GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >http://www.isoc.be > > >Parminder schreef: >> >>Hi All >> >> >> >>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >> >> >> >>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >> >> >> >>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>achieve its purpose. >> >> >> >>Parminder >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - >>Release Date: 2008-03-16 10:34 >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Mar 21 09:45:51 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:45:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080321121806.A61013443B1@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> I'll volunteer as well. MG -----Original Message----- From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: March 21, 2008 5:18 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations hi as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom karen At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain EURALO board member /Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen Belgium GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ http://www.isoc.be Parminder schreef: Hi All I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to achieve its purpose. Parminder ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: 2008-03-16 10:34 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 21 17:57:41 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:57:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead In-Reply-To: <002b01c88adb$ee0428a0$e838ed0a@IAN> References: <002b01c88adb$ee0428a0$e838ed0a@IAN> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC62B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I think McTim is referring to the fact that the paper attributes to IANA a plan that is being considered by ARIN. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: FW: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead > > > Well I do suggest struggle on McTim - you are dealing with a > report from a > well regarded CERN scientist with a long networking > background based on a > great degree of consultation with well regarded networking > scentists in IETF > and elsewhere. Be sure to view so that you can see the > extensive references > to back up his research. > > It's worth more than three sentences of your time and a more > sophisticated > rebuttal if you cannot follow the reasoning! > > http://www.ictconsulting.ch/reports/NEC2007-OHMartin.doc > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: 21 March 2008 09:06 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an excellent paper by Olivier Martin on this > subject and also > > > covering IPv4/v6 in some detail. > > > > I couldn't get past the 3rd sentence of the introduction, > which is, to > > my knowledge, false. > > > > If I get time, i may read the rest. > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release Date: > > 20/03/2008 09:48 > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release > Date: 20/03/2008 > 09:48 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release > Date: 20/03/2008 > 09:48 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 21 19:12:12 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:12:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] State of the Internet and Challenges Ahead In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC62B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <002b01c88adb$ee0428a0$e838ed0a@IAN> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC62B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I think McTim is referring to the fact that the paper attributes to IANA > a plan that is being considered by ARIN. and APNIC and RIPE communities, tho they are not all the same plan. -- 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 Sat Mar 22 00:57:35 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:27:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. Please also give your views on what should we do if we don't reach 25. (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool available, say, by the end of Monday? (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And groups) Parminder The present list of volunteers is as follows. Milton Mueller Jeremy Malcolm Suresh Ramasubramanian Jeremy Shtern Robert Guerra Bret Faucett SCHOMBE Baudouin Carlos Afonso Ian Peter Lee W. McKnight Maja Anjelkovic Gurumurthy K Rudi Vansnick Karen Banks Michael Gurstein David Goldstein Philippe Dam Anita Gurumuthy _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Sat Mar 22 01:34:35 2008 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:34:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: 2008/3/22, Parminder : > > Hi All > > > > We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > > > Please also give your views on what should we do if we don't reach 25. > > > > (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool available, say, > by the end of Monday? > after their agreement, option to draw 5 members. (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a > voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose > software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > > Parminder > > > > The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > > Milton Mueller > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > > Jeremy Shtern > > Robert Guerra > > Bret Faucett > > SCHOMBE Baudouin > > Carlos Afonso > > Ian Peter > > Lee W. McKnight > > Maja Anjelkovic > > Gurumurthy K > > Rudi Vansnick > > Karen Banks > > Michael Gurstein > > David Goldstein > > Philippe Dam > > Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > ------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 22 02:10:36 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:40:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080322061046.2AD85E1414@smtp3.electricembers.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:32 AM > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Stephane Bortzmeyer > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > Though I agree mostly with what you wrote below per se, same > thing should apply to those technical people - if they like > to be involved with social policy and governance issues, they > need to know some basics of policy process and especially > here, civil society values etc. I hope these are always > reciprocal or "equal" each other. > > AND, I hope one side will provide basics to the other, not > expecting others to study as an "obligation". Though I don't > like to put too much division between the "two" as a > dichotomy, and like to see them come together to make things > more productive > > izumi > > 2008/3/1, Suresh Ramasubramanian : > > Izumi AIZU [01/03/08 09:16 +0900]: > > > > >who are very much the users of the Internet. It is often > presented as > > >if > > >the people like me who does not have good knowledge are > "inferior" > > to those >knowledgeables, but I don't agree with that model. > > > > > > It is not a question of inferiority. But if people claim to be > > stakeholders and step forward to take an active stake in > something, > > it is really essential that they have at least a basic (or rather > > more than basic) technical awareness. > > > > Let's put it this way. If you were to become a VP in Ford > or Toyota, > > yes, you could be a good business person and be hired for > that. But > > if you actually knew the auto industry, and knew what your > > engineering and manufacturing people were telling you, that'd be a > > definite asset to you in your role. > > > > Once such a guide is set up, a few regular places that civ > soc meets > > at can be reached out to (by isoc, diplo or other groups > that offer > > to take this developed course and move it forward) > > > > > > suresh > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 02:30:14 2008 From: rusdiah at rad.net.id (rusdiah at rad.net.id) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:30:14 +0700 (WIT) Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080321121806.A61013443B1@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20080317040551.DE14867962@smtp1.electricembers.net> <47E1BD21.8060307@isoc.be> <20080321121806.A61013443B1@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <1985.125.164.189.50.1206167414.squirrel@mail.rad.net.id> I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 22 02:42:50 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:12:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format In-Reply-To: <20080322061046.2AD85E1414@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080322064258.40C61A6C89@smtp2.electricembers.net> Sorry, wrong posting. Don't know how this went out. (I was trying to look for izumi's old emails to get his id to check something with him on the nomcom process) Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:41 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Izumi AIZU' > Subject: RE: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > > Izumi AIZU > > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:32 AM > > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Stephane Bortzmeyer > > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format > > > > Though I agree mostly with what you wrote below per se, same thing > > should apply to those technical people - if they like to be > involved > > with social policy and governance issues, they need to know some > > basics of policy process and especially here, civil society values > > etc. I hope these are always reciprocal or "equal" each other. > > > > AND, I hope one side will provide basics to the other, not > expecting > > others to study as an "obligation". Though I don't like to put too > > much division between the "two" as a dichotomy, and like to > see them > > come together to make things more productive > > > > izumi > > > > 2008/3/1, Suresh Ramasubramanian : > > > Izumi AIZU [01/03/08 09:16 +0900]: > > > > > > >who are very much the users of the Internet. It is often > > presented as > > > >if > > > >the people like me who does not have good knowledge are > > "inferior" > > > to those >knowledgeables, but I don't agree with that model. > > > > > > > > > It is not a question of inferiority. But if people claim to be > > > stakeholders and step forward to take an active stake in > > something, > > > it is really essential that they have at least a basic > (or rather > > > more than basic) technical awareness. > > > > > > Let's put it this way. If you were to become a VP in Ford > > or Toyota, > > > yes, you could be a good business person and be hired for > > that. But > > > if you actually knew the auto industry, and knew what your > > > engineering and manufacturing people were telling you, > that'd be a > > > definite asset to you in your role. > > > > > > Once such a guide is set up, a few regular places that civ > > soc meets > > > at can be reached out to (by isoc, diplo or other groups > > that offer > > > to take this developed course and move it forward) > > > > > > > > > suresh > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 07:02:00 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:02:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <88D95F3B-3555-460D-8197-31413EF8BC67@ras.eu.org> Hi Parminder, Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. Meryem Le 22 mars 08 à 05:57, Parminder a écrit : > Hi All > > We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > Please also give your views on what should we do if we don’t reach 25. > > (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool > available, say, by the end of Monday? > > (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have > a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by > Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other > IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > > Parminder > > > > The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > > Milton Mueller > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > > Jeremy Shtern > > Robert Guerra > > Bret Faucett > > SCHOMBE Baudouin > > Carlos Afonso > > Ian Peter > > Lee W. McKnight > > Maja Anjelkovic > > Gurumurthy K > > Rudi Vansnick > > Karen Banks > > Michael Gurstein > > David Goldstein > > Philippe Dam > > Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Mar 22 08:08:27 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:38:27 -0430 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations References: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <003201c88c15$739fbf30$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> I am not particularly qualified for the nomcom, but if numbers are needed, I am a conscientious volunteer. Ginger, UNA Venezuela, Diplo Foundation (Latin America) ----- Original Message ----- From: CAFEC To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Parminder Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations 2008/3/22, Parminder : Hi All We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. Please also give your views on what should we do if we don't reach 25. (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool available, say, by the end of Monday? after their agreement, option to draw 5 members. (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And groups) Parminder The present list of volunteers is as follows. Milton Mueller Jeremy Malcolm Suresh Ramasubramanian Jeremy Shtern Robert Guerra Bret Faucett SCHOMBE Baudouin Carlos Afonso Ian Peter Lee W. McKnight Maja Anjelkovic Gurumurthy K Rudi Vansnick Karen Banks Michael Gurstein David Goldstein Philippe Dam Anita Gurumuthy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 vcretu at cmb.md Sat Mar 22 08:26:48 2008 From: vcretu at cmb.md (Veronica Cretu) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:26:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations References: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <003201c88c15$739fbf30$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <002b01c88c18$009dbb60$7ca5f857@SERVER> Greetings from Moldova! And Happy Easter for all those who are celebrating it tomorrow! I want to adhere to the current nomcom list of nominees, and propose my candidacy, and like Ginger, I am indeed a conscientious volunteer:)! Veronica Cretu, President, "CMB" Training Center (www.cmb.md), Republic of Moldova (Eastern Europe), DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Program Tutor and Research Supervisor (2005-2007), ICANN At Large Advisory Committee Member (EURALO) since May 2007. . ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations I am not particularly qualified for the nomcom, but if numbers are needed, I am a conscientious volunteer. Ginger, UNA Venezuela, Diplo Foundation (Latin America) ----- Original Message ----- From: CAFEC To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Parminder Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations 2008/3/22, Parminder : Hi All We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. Please also give your views on what should we do if we don't reach 25. (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool available, say, by the end of Monday? after their agreement, option to draw 5 members. (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And groups) Parminder The present list of volunteers is as follows. Milton Mueller Jeremy Malcolm Suresh Ramasubramanian Jeremy Shtern Robert Guerra Bret Faucett SCHOMBE Baudouin Carlos Afonso Ian Peter Lee W. McKnight Maja Anjelkovic Gurumurthy K Rudi Vansnick Karen Banks Michael Gurstein David Goldstein Philippe Dam Anita Gurumuthy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Sat Mar 22 09:11:29 2008 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:11:29 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I volunteer as well, to help completing the process. best regards Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Samstag, 22. März 2008 05:58 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Hi All We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. Please also give your views on what should we do if we don’t reach 25. (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool available, say, by the end of Monday? (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And groups) Parminder The present list of volunteers is as follows. Milton Mueller Jeremy Malcolm Suresh Ramasubramanian Jeremy Shtern Robert Guerra Bret Faucett SCHOMBE Baudouin Carlos Afonso Ian Peter Lee W. McKnight Maja Anjelkovic Gurumurthy K Rudi Vansnick Karen Banks Michael Gurstein David Goldstein Philippe Dam Anita Gurumuthy ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Mar 22 09:28:21 2008 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:28:21 +0600 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080322132419.C1D9BE04AD@smtp3.electricembers.net> Glad to volunteer in this process to complete the process, if applicable. Hakikur Rahman Dr. Md. Hakikur Rahman Chairman SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh web: www.schoolnetbd.org, www.hakik.org email: email at hakik.org At 10:57 AM 3/22/2008, Parminder wrote: >Hi All > >We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > >Please also give your views on what should we do if we don't reach 25. > >(1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool >available, say, by the end of Monday? >(2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a >voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, >whose software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And groups) > > >Parminder > >The present list of volunteers is as follows. > >Milton Mueller >Jeremy Malcolm >Suresh Ramasubramanian >Jeremy Shtern >Robert Guerra >Bret Faucett >SCHOMBE Baudouin >Carlos Afonso >Ian Peter >Lee W. McKnight >Maja Anjelkovic >Gurumurthy K >Rudi Vansnick >Karen Banks >Michael Gurstein >David Goldstein >Philippe Dam >Anita Gurumuthy > > > >---------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 22 09:44:26 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Anti-Trust Complaint Filed Against ICANN, Registerfly and Enom Message-ID: Anti-Trust Complaint Filed Against ICANN, Registerfly and Enom by Adam Strong in Categories: ICANN / Policy 03|20|2008 5:09 pm EDT http://www.domainnamenews.com/icann-policy/anti-trust-complaint-filed-against-icann-registerfly-and-enom/1484#more-1484 - Two individuals have filed a complaint in US Federal Court in California accusing ICANN, Registerfly.com and Enom.com of anti-trust activities [pdf document]. The complainants are seeking $25 Million in damages. Accusations found in the court documents also claim the companies were involved in racketeering, RICO violations, Sherman Anti-Trust Act violations, fraud, breach of contract, negligence and more. This latest case surrounding the Registerfly fiasco has become more interesting with the lofty charges of anti-trust and RICO violations brought specifically against ICANN . The RegisterFly.com mess happened over a year ago when the company, both an ICANN accredited registrar and at one point an Enom reseller, collapsed over internal company issues. A good summary can be found here. The problems that registrants encountered during this time forced ICANN to strip Registerfly of their ICANN accreditation and Godaddy was brought in to help clean up the carnage. A previous class action suit was brought up against the company last year. -- Ref. Links: United States District Court, Central District of California http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/ Filing [March 18, 2008] Civil Action No.: CV08-01865 MICHEAL MOORE RONALD P. GENTRY Plaintiffs, v. INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS ENOM, INC. AND REGISTERFLY.COM INC.; Defendants http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/03/20/IcannEnom.pdf -- Article's References: http://www.registerfly-lawsuit.com/developments/priorhistory1.shtml http://domainnamewire.com/2007/05/29/its-official-godaddy-to-take-over-registerflys-domains/ http://www.registerfly-lawsuit.com/registerfly-lawsuit-overview.shtml -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 icggov at johnlevine.com Sat Mar 22 11:25:26 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 22 Mar 2008 15:25:26 -0000 Subject: [governance] Anti-Trust Complaint Filed Against ICANN, Registerfly and Enom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080322152526.16047.qmail@simone.iecc.com> This is the same suit that was thrown out in Alabama last November. The last time around, the throwing out was based on the court's conclusion that none of the defendants did enough business in Alabama to be subject to suit there. This time it'sfiled it in Los Angeles, where ICANN is located so at least the court will clearly have jurisdiction. On the other hand, if you read the prior dismissal, it's clear that the court thought that the case was rather bogus regardless of the geography. By my reading of it, the plaintiffs may well have claims against Registerfly (get in line with everyone else) and perhaps eNom, but turning it into an anti-trust conspiracy featuring "ICANN Enterprises, Inc." and Verisign is silly. http://www.icann.org/legal/moore-v-icann/moore-v-icann-dismissal.pdf >Anti-Trust Complaint Filed Against ICANN, Registerfly and Enom >by Adam Strong in Categories: ICANN / Policy >03|20|2008 5:09 pm EDT > >http://www.domainnamenews.com/icann-policy/anti-trust-complaint-filed-against-icann-registerfly-and-enom/1484#more-1484 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sat Mar 22 12:02:49 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:02:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Anti-Trust Complaint Filed Against ICANN, Registerfly In-Reply-To: <20080322152526.16047.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20080322152526.16047.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <47E52DA9.2040306@cavebear.com> John Levine wrote: > but turning it into an anti-trust conspiracy featuring "ICANN > Enterprises, Inc." and Verisign is silly. I agree with you on absence of overt conspiracy part. However, respected legal academics have looked at the ICANN situation and have concluded that there are substantial questions regarding the legality of ICANN as a place in which competitors and affected economic interests (trademark owners) gather to shape the marketplace; determine products, terms of sale, and prices; and decide what newcomers get the privilege of being vendors in that marketplace - i.e. a combination in restraint of trade. It does seem true that the intensity of incumbent-protective internet regulation under ICANN is such that it is easier and faster to open up a new hospital or airline - ventures in which people can readily die - than to establish a new top level domain name registry. This reflects one of the biggest problems in all of our efforts of internet governance: as long as we begin with the premise that there are pre-defined "stakeholders" then internet governance is likely to remain less as governance for the benefit of the public and more as a pre-captured regulatory system that protects the economic interests of those "stakeholders". --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 icggov at johnlevine.com Sat Mar 22 12:10:57 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 22 Mar 2008 16:10:57 -0000 Subject: [governance] Anti-Trust Complaint Filed Against ICANN, Registerfly and Enom In-Reply-To: <47E52DA9.2040306@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20080322161057.16361.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >I agree with you on absence of overt conspiracy part. However, >respected legal academics have looked at the ICANN situation and have >concluded that there are substantial questions regarding the legality >of ICANN as a place in which competitors and affected economic >interests (trademark owners) gather to shape the marketplace; >determine products, terms of sale, and prices; and decide what >newcomers get the privilege of being vendors in that marketplace - >i.e. a combination in restraint of trade. I wouldn't disagree. But that would be a rather different suit, filed by someone like .XXX who followed all the rules to become a registry and was turned down anyway, not two yokels in Alabama with a complaint against Registerfly. R's, John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From info at e-fem.net Sat Mar 22 21:46:13 2008 From: info at e-fem.net (info at e-fem.net) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <003201c88c15$739fbf30$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> References: <028501c88b59$eab3c7e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <003201c88c15$739fbf30$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49489.201.51.73.187.1206236773.squirrel@webmail.e-fem.net> Hello! I'll volunteer as well. Magaly Pazello -------------- EMERGE/G2G Brazil > I am not particularly qualified for the nomcom, but if numbers are needed, > I am a conscientious volunteer. > Ginger, UNA Venezuela, Diplo Foundation (Latin America) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: CAFEC > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Parminder > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > > 2008/3/22, Parminder : > Hi All > > > We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > > Please also give your views on what should we do if we don't reach 25. > > > (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool available, > say, by the end of Monday? > > > after their agreement, option to draw 5 members. > > > (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a > voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, > whose software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And > groups) > > > > Parminder > > > > The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > > Milton Mueller > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > > Jeremy Shtern > > Robert Guerra > > Bret Faucett > > SCHOMBE Baudouin > > Carlos Afonso > > Ian Peter > > Lee W. McKnight > > Maja Anjelkovic > > Gurumurthy K > > Rudi Vansnick > > Karen Banks > > Michael Gurstein > > David Goldstein > > Philippe Dam > > Anita Gurumuthy > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Sat Mar 22 22:03:36 2008 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <88D95F3B-3555-460D-8197-31413EF8BC67@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <294607.16151.qm@web54307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi All I have been following the discussions with interest and am informed but not sure if I am qualified enough . I have participated in WSIS in Geneva and Tunis I would like to volunteer in all good conscience so that we make up the numbers. Thanks for all the work that all of you do Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI California Meryem Marzouki wrote: Hi Parminder, Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. Meryem Le 22 mars 08 à 05:57, Parminder a écrit : > Hi All > > We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > Please also give your views on what should we do if we don’t reach 25. > > (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool > available, say, by the end of Monday? > > (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have > a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by > Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other > IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > > Parminder > > > > The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > > Milton Mueller > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > > Jeremy Shtern > > Robert Guerra > > Bret Faucett > > SCHOMBE Baudouin > > Carlos Afonso > > Ian Peter > > Lee W. McKnight > > Maja Anjelkovic > > Gurumurthy K > > Rudi Vansnick > > Karen Banks > > Michael Gurstein > > David Goldstein > > Philippe Dam > > Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance be as a well......sure and limitless.... but as time befits.....assume other forms .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Sat Mar 22 22:07:10 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:07:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <294607.16151.qm@web54307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <88D95F3B-3555-460D-8197-31413EF8BC67@ras.eu.org> <294607.16151.qm@web54307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry foe beling late - I volunteer for NomCom. Thanks for the hard work! izumi > > Le 22 mars 08 à 05:57, Parminder a écrit : > > > Hi All > > > > We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > > > Please also give your views on what should we do if we don't reach 25. > > > > (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool > > available, say, by the end of Monday? > > > > (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have > > a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by > > Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other > > IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > > Jeremy Malcolm > > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > Jeremy Shtern > > > > Robert Guerra > > > > Bret Faucett > > > > SCHOMBE Baudouin > > > > Carlos Afonso > > > > Ian Peter > > > > Lee W. McKnight > > > > Maja Anjelkovic > > > > Gurumurthy K > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > > > Karen Banks > > > > Michael Gurstein > > > > David Goldstein > > > > Philippe Dam > > > > Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > be as a well......sure and limitless.... > but as time befits.....assume other forms .... > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 23 03:17:35 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:17:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <20080312102328.5AB62E21EE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <47D80537.5030602@rits.org.br> <47D8E139.8090504@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1AF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90162A1F6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DBDB9E.6000306@wzb.eu> <47DCE6B1.4080309@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC5B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47DEA10A.2020304@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Meryem, >Adam, and all, > (deleted) >>And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about >>the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what >>we're doing or submit names independently. > >I don't agree with this. I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. Probably because I wasn't very clear! As far as I'm concerned, any CS group, whether a member of the caucus or not, should be able to recommend names for the pool of candidates caucus nomcom will consider. I was thinking particularly of groups that have organized workshops, dynamic coalitions, but also the WSIS plenary lists (and WSIS caucus/WG). Nomcom process should be looking for the strongest pool possible to choose from. And those groups (and individuals) would of course be free to organize their own process of making recommendations direct to the SG process, or through self nomination. The caucus has no special right to be the only representative of CS in Internet governance matters. It's never claimed such a right (best I can remember, anyway.) But it has build a reputation as the leading CS actor on the issue (though that's slipping.) >More exactly, I don't agree with IGC declaring itself all of sudden >as representing more than what it is, i.e. this list (or even >eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder recently reminded: "I must >inform the new members that they will be eligible for voting (if >they have subscribed to the charter in their acceptance email) >only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC >positions, including nomcom etc...". > >First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG >nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the >accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. I think anyone who accepts the caucus' recommendation has an obligation to ensure the caucus is informed of what the MAG's considering, and the MAG informed of the caucus' positions. Such people should be or become list members, and should be involved in reporting to/from the MAG. The caucus will see what they do on the list through the extracted email. The summaries of the closed meetings are quite informative, though often need clarification. Probably be a good idea if the caucus went over these summaries after the meeting and then asked MAG members for clarification. (Would also help us get a better understanding of what we're achieving in the MAG/IGF.) >If someone is proposed by another entity in addition to IGC, then >bravo, but this doesn't reduce by any mean the need for >accountability to IGC. What do you mean by "accountability"? I've never felt accountable to the caucus, I don't find it something it's possible to be accountable to (basically a mailing list anyone can join, not very clear what someone would be being accountable to.) I may just understand (feel) differently from you about the word. Thanks, Adam >Best, >Meryem____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 23 03:19:25 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:19:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I volunteer if there are no objections. A member of the MAG commenting on other "incumbent" members might either be helpful or might be an undue/unfair influence. Not sure which. But worth discussing. I understand that if selected I wouldn't be eligible for the list being chosen. But should that happen I would not withdraw my name from consideration by the SG as either through self-nomination or if recommended by some CS group. I hope members of the appeals teams would also not be subject to any restriction. Do we have a list of people who signed the charter? Adam >Hi All > >We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > >Please also give your views on what should we do if we don¹t reach 25. > >(1)     Should we draw 5 members in any case >from the pool available, say, by the end of >Monday? >(2)     Should we go for direct elections of MAG >nominees (we have a voting software now, which >has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose >software I understand is being used by many >other IG orgs. And groups) > > >Parminder > >The present list of volunteers is as follows. > >Milton Mueller >Jeremy Malcolm >Suresh Ramasubramanian >Jeremy Shtern >Robert Guerra >Bret Faucett >SCHOMBE Baudouin >Carlos Afonso >Ian Peter >Lee W. McKnight >Maja Anjelkovic >Gurumurthy K >Rudi Vansnick >Karen Banks >Michael Gurstein >David Goldstein >Philippe Dam >Anita Gurumuthy > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 03:30:52 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:30:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: References: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080323073052.GA20721@hserus.net> Adam Peake [23/03/08 16:19 +0900]: > I understand that if selected I wouldn't be eligible for the list being > chosen. But should that happen I would not withdraw my name from > consideration by the SG as either through self-nomination or if recommended > by some CS group. I hope members of the appeals teams would also not be > subject to any restriction. That is appropriate and acceptable. As this nomcom is about the caucus candidates nominations process, not about the MAG nominations progress ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 04:44:56 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:14:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080323084505.DEC6AA6C1F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear Ginger, Veronica and Wolfgang, Welcome to the IGC! And thanks a lot for your eager enthusiasm to contribute. The caucus can do with a lot of such energy. However, unfortunately, under the rules with which operate, new members need to be in the group for 2 months before they can vote, or be part of IGC appointments like that of being on the nomcom. I hope you will appreciate the logic of such a rule. Thanks once again. Parminder _____ From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: AW: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations I volunteer as well, to help completing the process. best regards Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Samstag, 22. März 2008 05:58 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Hi All We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. Please also give your views on what should we do if we don’t reach 25. (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool available, say, by the end of Monday? (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other IG orgs. And groups) Parminder The present list of volunteers is as follows. Milton Mueller Jeremy Malcolm Suresh Ramasubramanian Jeremy Shtern Robert Guerra Bret Faucett SCHOMBE Baudouin Carlos Afonso Ian Peter Lee W. McKnight Maja Anjelkovic Gurumurthy K Rudi Vansnick Karen Banks Michael Gurstein David Goldstein Philippe Dam Anita Gurumuthy _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 07:08:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:38:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <88D95F3B-3555-460D-8197-31413EF8BC67@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20080323110854.1501769239@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Hi Parminder, > > Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many > countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an > extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important > that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any > dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. > > Meryem Meryem I will publish the full schedule of the process by tomorrow but we have decided that members can volunteer up to the 31st of May. Meanwhile we propose to start/ keep up a discussion on criteria that the nomcom may use. I figure we still need at least around 4-5 more volunteers. But I think members are opting in, and we will reach the needed number. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > Hi Parminder, > > Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many > countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an > extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important > that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any > dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. > > Meryem > > Le 22 mars 08 à 05:57, Parminder a écrit : > > > Hi All > > > > We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > > > Please also give your views on what should we do if we don’t reach 25. > > > > (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool > > available, say, by the end of Monday? > > > > (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have > > a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by > > Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other > > IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > > Jeremy Malcolm > > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > Jeremy Shtern > > > > Robert Guerra > > > > Bret Faucett > > > > SCHOMBE Baudouin > > > > Carlos Afonso > > > > Ian Peter > > > > Lee W. McKnight > > > > Maja Anjelkovic > > > > Gurumurthy K > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > > > Karen Banks > > > > Michael Gurstein > > > > David Goldstein > > > > Philippe Dam > > > > Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 07:19:31 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:49:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080323110854.1501769239@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080323111940.DE13569241@smtp1.electricembers.net> >members can volunteer up to the 31st of May. Mistake. 31st of March, of course. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 4:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Meryem Marzouki' > Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many > > countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an > > extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important > > that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any > > dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. > > > > Meryem > > Meryem > > I will publish the full schedule of the process by tomorrow but we have > decided that members can volunteer up to the 31st of May. > > Meanwhile we propose to start/ keep up a discussion on criteria that the > nomcom may use. > > I figure we still need at least around 4-5 more volunteers. But I think > members are opting in, and we will reach the needed number. > > Parminder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:32 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many > > countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an > > extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important > > that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any > > dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. > > > > Meryem > > > > Le 22 mars 08 à 05:57, Parminder a écrit : > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > > > > > Please also give your views on what should we do if we don’t reach 25. > > > > > > (1) Should we draw 5 members in any case from the pool > > > available, say, by the end of Monday? > > > > > > (2) Should we go for direct elections of MAG nominees (we have > > > a voting software now, which has graciously been offered by > > > Bigpulse, whose software I understand is being used by many other > > > IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton Mueller > > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm > > > > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > > > Jeremy Shtern > > > > > > Robert Guerra > > > > > > Bret Faucett > > > > > > SCHOMBE Baudouin > > > > > > Carlos Afonso > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > Lee W. McKnight > > > > > > Maja Anjelkovic > > > > > > Gurumurthy K > > > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > > > > > Karen Banks > > > > > > Michael Gurstein > > > > > > David Goldstein > > > > > > Philippe Dam > > > > > > Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Mar 23 11:32:05 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:32:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080323110854.1501769239@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080323110854.1501769239@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: > > Hi Parminder, >> >> Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many >> countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an >> extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important >> that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any >> dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. >> >> Meryem > >Meryem > >I will publish the full schedule of the process by tomorrow but we have >decided that members can volunteer up to the 31st of May. > >Meanwhile we propose to start/ keep up a discussion on criteria that the >nomcom may use. Parminder, Suggest we begin with the recommendations from the MAG that will go to the secretary general: "6. While not perfect, the balance of the current MAG was felt to be reasonable. However, it was generally agreed that there was room for improvement with regard to the gender balance as well as representation of developing countries." and, "10. With regard to the MAG's operating principles and selection criteria, the group reaffirmed that members served in their individual capacity. They emphasized that the work of the MAG was collegial and based on consensus and there was a need for procedural flexibility. The anonymity and non-attribution of the discussions was recognized as a crucial principle of the MAG's work. In concrete terms, this principle, known as the Chatham House Rule, allows participants to use the information received, but neither to reveal the identity nor the affiliation of the speakers. Members should possess relevant knowledge and willingness to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested groups. There was agreement that active and constructive participation of all members was required. Members were expected to take part in three meetings in Geneva, as well as in the annual IGF meeting and participate in online preparatory work. Ways of financing attendance of developing country members are being explored. All meetings also provide tools for remote members' participation." These are not the caucus' rules, we're not bound by them, but it would be a good idea to keep them in mind (if we submit a batch of names saying they are the representatives of the caucus, people we have power of recall over, etc, this may not sit well with the idea that members serve in their individual capacity. The MAG's recommendations came from the consultation process.) Looks like members from developing countries will be supported financially. Being able to commit the time important, about a month/year for travel (MAG meetings are 3 days, IGF 4 days, unless the person's based in Europe, travel to Geneva takes a while.) Participating remotely in MAG meetings is possible, CS members have done so. I think Milton and Bill suggested MAG members needed few skills. And that's generally true, members aren't arguing the rights and wrongs of an issue like a session panelist might, but do need enough knowledge to be able to persuade others that a range of issues are important (no accident that Robin's expertise on "openness" has lead to issues featuring prominently.) Should have a broad knowledge of a range of Internet policy issues, with deeper expertise in a few (got to understand the issues CS organizations are saying important, can't just parrot texts written by others, and know when others are wrong, etc) Should have a good network of people (regional/global). Multi-stakeholder: it needs people who can be persuasive, who will listen to/try to accommodate other points of view. The MAG tries to be "collegial and based on consensus". Strident advocacy tends not to work. Should be willing to do work at the IGF meetings, from setting up tables to moderating workshops etc. MAG isn't a high level group, but experience working in committees/working groups helpful. I think this comment from the 2006 nomcom criteria still relevant: "A working statement of the criteria is best expressed by a quote from one of the members of the NomCom: To that end, people we appoint should have a stated (and, I would hope, demonstrated) commitment to consultation and thoughtful dialogue with the community. We should seek a diversity of views and talents on the committee, but one constant should be good communication. This is more than participation on the list; it also includes listening, mediating, facilitating, trying to build consensus -- and, most importantly, being able to articulate the truly held views of others even when you disagree with them." MAG members are always going to be volunteers, there's only so much time that a person can devote. Looking back at WSIS very few of CS caucus and working group coordinators, WGIG members, came did much more that MAG members have been doing, i.e. don't make unrealistic demands. MAG members shouldn't be looking to join the group to exploit membership for their own or their organization's gain, they should put CS interests ahead their own or their organization's. Thanks, Adam >I figure we still need at least around 4-5 more volunteers. But I think >members are opting in, and we will reach the needed number. > >Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many >> countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an >> extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important >> that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any >> dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. >> > > Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Mar 23 12:24:24 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Software Distribution / Turning software updating mechanisms, into a self-serving distribution channel Message-ID: Mozilla CEO: Apple's Safari-To-Windows Distribution Scheme Is Wrong Apple made Safari version 3.1 available for Windows through its Software Update control panel and as a download from its Web site. By Thomas Claburn, InformationWeek CMP Media LLC March 21, 2008 URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905256 Art. Ref.: http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905256 Print: http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905256 - Mozilla CEO John Lilly on Friday lashed out at Apple for turning its software updating mechanism into a self-serving distribution channel for its Safari Web browser. "What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong," Lilly said in a blog post on Friday. "It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that's bad -- not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web." Mozilla makes the Firefox Web browser, which competes with Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari. On Tuesday, Apple released Safari 3.1, a new version of its Web browser. It made Safari available for Mac OS X and Windows through its Software Update control panel and as a download from its Web site. What Lilly objects to is the fact that while Safari comes pre-installed on Apple's Macintosh computers, making version 3.1 an update, Apple's browser isn't standard issue on Windows machines. Apple has thus converted a channel previously used for patching existing software into a channel for distributing new software. It's not yet clear whether recent market share gains on the part of Apple's Safari browser pose a threat to the usage of Mozilla's Firefox. Since the first quarter of 2006, both Safari and Firefox have gained market share, at the expense of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to figures from TheCounter.com and Net Applications. But Lilly's comments suggest worries about that possibility. According to Net Applications, Microsoft Internet Explorer held 75.1% of Web browser market share in the first quarter of 2008, Mozilla's Firefox held 17.3%, and Apple's Safari held 5.8%. "Apple has made it incredibly easy -- the default, even -- for users to install ride along software that they didn't ask for, and maybe didn't want," Lilly said. "This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices. It's wrong because it undermines the trust that we're all trying to build with users. Because it means that an update isn't just an update, but is maybe something more. Because it ultimately undermines the safety of users on the Web by eroding that relationship. It's a bad practice and should stop." Apple did not respond to a request for comment. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 12:44:33 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:44:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <016101c88d05$a822e070$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> It seems to me that there is some form of contradiction between two statements that Adam makes below... "Being able to commit the time important, about a month/year for travel (MAG meetings are 3 days, IGF 4 days, unless the person's based in Europe, travel to Geneva takes a while.) Participating remotely in MAG meetings is possible, CS members have done so." Based on some notional figures: 30 days travel @ $200/day = $6000 travel costs say 4 trips @ $2000/trip = $8000 Total (not counting work time) = $14,000 +/- So, who apart from those who are "professionally" involved in the issues under discussion i.e. have some sort of institutional sponsorship (or have private trust funds) will be able to devote a month and $14,000 out of pocket to this effort without: "exploit(ing) membership for their own or their organization's gain" unless CS is populated by a large number of privately wealthy saints. I have no objection to the MAG consisting of all "professionals"--government, corporate and CS (we'll see who the reps who are funded from LDC's might be) but I think we should be clear about this and recognize that "grassroots" folks and here I'm including those from less than fully endowed CS organizations including from Developed Countries are more or less automatically being excluded here. In the Internet Governance area, at least as such is being defined by this CS group, I don't think it matters very much as not many ICT4D users (whether in LDCs or in Developed Countries) will have a lot of interest in the issues under discussion; however, I think we as "representing" CS in this space should be at least noting the contradiction above and ensuring that what passes for representivity in the IGF space should not become an overall precedent for other spaces where other and more user oriented "Internet Governance" and ICT4D issues are discussed. MG -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: March 23, 2008 8:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations ... Looks like members from developing countries will be supported financially. Being able to commit the time important, about a month/year for travel (MAG meetings are 3 days, IGF 4 days, unless the person's based in Europe, travel to Geneva takes a while.) Participating remotely in MAG meetings is possible, CS members have done so. ... MAG members are always going to be volunteers, there's only so much time that a person can devote. Looking back at WSIS very few of CS caucus and working group coordinators, WGIG members, came did much more that MAG members have been doing, i.e. don't make unrealistic demands. MAG members shouldn't be looking to join the group to exploit membership for their own or their organization's gain, they should put CS interests ahead their own or their organization's. Thanks, Adam >I figure we still need at least around 4-5 more volunteers. But I think >members are opting in, and we will reach the needed number. > >Parminder > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many >> countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an >> extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important >> that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any >> dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. >> > > Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Sun Mar 23 13:22:45 2008 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:22:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?news:_India_will_vote_against_Micr?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?osoft=92s_OXML?= Message-ID: <47E691E5.8010602@gmail.com> http://tinyurl.com/32ec3d or http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/Software/India_to_vote_against_Microsofts_OXML_against_wishes_of_IT_cos/articleshow/2885776.cms ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 23 16:38:29 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:38:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080323073052.GA20721@hserus.net> References: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080323073052.GA20721@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47E6BFC5.9000507@rits.org.br> But it remains clear that IGC nomcom members will not be nominated by the IGC. Just in case... Anyway, I find this extremely vulnerable to manipulation. The best scenario would be for all IGC nomcoms *not* to be candidates either by self-lobbying or nomination by other constituencies. frt rgds --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Adam Peake [23/03/08 16:19 +0900]: >> I understand that if selected I wouldn't be eligible for the list >> being chosen. But should that happen I would not withdraw my name from >> consideration by the SG as either through self-nomination or if >> recommended by some CS group. I hope members of the appeals teams >> would also not be subject to any restriction. > > That is appropriate and acceptable. As this nomcom is about the caucus > candidates nominations process, not about the MAG nominations progress > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Mar 23 18:54:13 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:54:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <016101c88d05$a822e070$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <016101c88d05$a822e070$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <47E6DF95.8040700@wzb.eu> Michael Gurstein wrote: > It seems to me that there is some form of contradiction between two > statements that Adam makes below... > > "Being able to commit the time important, about a > month/year for travel (MAG meetings are 3 days, IGF 4 days, unless > the person's based in Europe, travel to Geneva takes a while.) > Participating remotely in MAG meetings is possible, CS members have > done so." Hi Michael, I don't see the contradiction. For example, at the last MAG meeting it was a comment from somebody who couldn't attend and participated remotely which got the most support from other MAG members. What is more, there is the MAG mailing list. People who cannot attend can still contribute via email if they want to. jeanette > > Based on some notional figures: > 30 days travel @ $200/day = $6000 > travel costs say 4 trips @ $2000/trip = $8000 > Total (not counting work time) = $14,000 +/- > > So, who apart from those who are "professionally" involved in the issues > under discussion i.e. have some sort of institutional sponsorship (or have > private trust funds) will be able to devote a month and $14,000 out of > pocket to this effort without: "exploit(ing) membership for their own or > their organization's gain" unless CS is populated by a large number of > privately wealthy saints. > > I have no objection to the MAG consisting of all > "professionals"--government, corporate and CS (we'll see who the reps who > are funded from LDC's might be) but I think we should be clear about this > and recognize that "grassroots" folks and here I'm including those from less > than fully endowed CS organizations including from Developed Countries are > more or less automatically being excluded here. > > In the Internet Governance area, at least as such is being defined by this > CS group, I don't think it matters very much as not many ICT4D users > (whether in LDCs or in Developed Countries) will have a lot of interest in > the issues under discussion; however, I think we as "representing" CS in > this space should be at least noting the contradiction above and ensuring > that what passes for representivity in the IGF space should not become an > overall precedent for other spaces where other and more user oriented > "Internet Governance" and ICT4D issues are discussed. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: March 23, 2008 8:32 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > ... > > Looks like members from developing countries will be supported > financially. Being able to commit the time important, about a > month/year for travel (MAG meetings are 3 days, IGF 4 days, unless > the person's based in Europe, travel to Geneva takes a while.) > Participating remotely in MAG meetings is possible, CS members have > done so. > > ... > > MAG members are always going to be volunteers, there's only so much > time that a person can devote. Looking back at WSIS very few of CS > caucus and working group coordinators, WGIG members, came did much > more that MAG members have been doing, i.e. don't make unrealistic > demands. MAG members shouldn't be looking to join the group to > exploit membership for their own or their organization's gain, they > should put CS interests ahead their own or their organization's. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >> I figure we still need at least around 4-5 more volunteers. But I think >> members are opting in, and we will reach the needed number. >> >> Parminder >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:32 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many >>> countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an >>> extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important >>> that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any >>> dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. >>> >> > Meryem > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 19:35:39 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:35:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: References: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1A779129-273F-418A-B6BD-D2B688C7B9D9@internet.law.pro> This is the way it worked last time, and it's my expectation that it will work this way again. If you volunteer for NomComm and are selected for NomComm, you are not eligible for NomComm appointed positions. If you are not selected, you will be eligible. Bret On Mar 23, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > I understand that if selected I wouldn't be eligible for the list > being chosen. But should that happen I would not withdraw my name > from consideration by the SG as either through self-nomination or if > recommended by some CS group. I hope members of the appeals teams > would also not be subject to any restriction. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4140 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Mar 23 20:01:40 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:01:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <47E6DF95.8040700@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <000a01c88d42$3e79b260$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Hi Jeanette, If effective remote participation as a full working member of the group is now possible that is a very positive development (for CS) and presumably should be taken into account in the various selection processes. MG -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: March 23, 2008 3:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: 'Adam Peake' Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Michael Gurstein wrote: > It seems to me that there is some form of contradiction between two > statements that Adam makes below... > > "Being able to commit the time important, about a > month/year for travel (MAG meetings are 3 days, IGF 4 days, unless > the person's based in Europe, travel to Geneva takes a while.) > Participating remotely in MAG meetings is possible, CS members have > done so." Hi Michael, I don't see the contradiction. For example, at the last MAG meeting it was a comment from somebody who couldn't attend and participated remotely which got the most support from other MAG members. What is more, there is the MAG mailing list. People who cannot attend can still contribute via email if they want to. jeanette > > Based on some notional figures: > 30 days travel @ $200/day = $6000 > travel costs say 4 trips @ $2000/trip = $8000 > Total (not counting work time) = $14,000 +/- > > So, who apart from those who are "professionally" involved in the > issues under discussion i.e. have some sort of institutional > sponsorship (or have private trust funds) will be able to devote a > month and $14,000 out of pocket to this effort without: "exploit(ing) > membership for their own or their organization's gain" unless CS is > populated by a large number of privately wealthy saints. > > I have no objection to the MAG consisting of all > "professionals"--government, corporate and CS (we'll see who the reps > who are funded from LDC's might be) but I think we should be clear > about this and recognize that "grassroots" folks and here I'm > including those from less than fully endowed CS organizations > including from Developed Countries are more or less automatically > being excluded here. > > In the Internet Governance area, at least as such is being defined by > this CS group, I don't think it matters very much as not many ICT4D > users (whether in LDCs or in Developed Countries) will have a lot of > interest in the issues under discussion; however, I think we as > "representing" CS in this space should be at least noting the > contradiction above and ensuring that what passes for representivity > in the IGF space should not become an overall precedent for other > spaces where other and more user oriented "Internet Governance" and > ICT4D issues are discussed. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: March 23, 2008 8:32 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > ... > > Looks like members from developing countries will be supported > financially. Being able to commit the time important, about a > month/year for travel (MAG meetings are 3 days, IGF 4 days, unless the > person's based in Europe, travel to Geneva takes a while.) > Participating remotely in MAG meetings is possible, CS members have > done so. > > ... > > MAG members are always going to be volunteers, there's only so much > time that a person can devote. Looking back at WSIS very few of CS > caucus and working group coordinators, WGIG members, came did much > more that MAG members have been doing, i.e. don't make unrealistic > demands. MAG members shouldn't be looking to join the group to exploit > membership for their own or their organization's gain, they should put > CS interests ahead their own or their organization's. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >> I figure we still need at least around 4-5 more volunteers. But I >> think members are opting in, and we will reach the needed number. >> >> Parminder >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:32 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Please take note that it's Easter week, major holiday in many >>> countries, including Monday as day off. Is it possible to consider an >>> extended deadline, e.g. Wednesday, rather than Monday? It's important >>> that this process of nominating MAG members doesn't lead to any >>> dispute, at least regarding procedural matters. >>> >> > Meryem > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 20:08:05 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:08:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Software Distribution / Turning software updating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080324000805.GA5363@hserus.net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com [23/03/08 09:24 -0700]: >Mozilla CEO: Apple's Safari-To-Windows Distribution Scheme Is Wrong >Apple made Safari version 3.1 available for Windows through its >Software Update control panel and as a download from its Web site. I could be wrong but this sounds very irelevant to governance, or the internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 23 20:25:04 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-7?Q?news:_India_will_vote_against_Mi?= =?ISO-8859-7?Q?crosoft=A2s_OXML?= In-Reply-To: <47E691E5.8010602@gmail.com> References: <47E691E5.8010602@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Sylvia Caras wrote: > http://tinyurl.com/32ec3d > or > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/Software/India_to_vote_against_Microsofts_OXML_against_wishes_of_IT_cos/articleshow/2885776.cms Not very correct. Four or five large Indian IT companies voted for OOXML. Other IT companies and civil society groups voted no. Speaking of civil society, it becomes more interesting when you read this article - http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=BO&autono=316006 Microsoft `cajoles` NGOs to support OOXML Leslie D'Monte / Mumbai March 7, 2008 The controversy over acceptance of Microsoft.s format Office Open XML (OOXML) as a standard by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) refuses to die. CORRUPT FILE # The Open Document Format (ODF) proponents are alleging that the software giant has .cajoled. Indian NGOs to write to the IT ministry and BIS, supporting OOXML as a standard # They are peeved over the fact that of the 30-odd NGOs, some are funded by the software giant # Till date, India.s stand has been .No. (with comments) to OOXML # A Microsoft spokesperson, when contacted, admitted that letters were indeed sent to the NGOs, but insisted that .one should not read between the lines. The Open Document Format (ODF) proponents . who are opposing OOXML on the grounds that .multiple standards. are not advisable . are alleging that the software giant has .cajoled. Indian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to write to the IT ministry and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), supporting OOXML as a standard. They are peeved over the fact that of the 30-odd NGOs, some are funded by the software giant. The letter (template provided by Microsoft), among other things, reads: ....Please write a paragraph about your organisation...Please paraphrase .We support OXML (sic) as a standard that encourages multiplicity of choice and interoperability giving us the ultimate consumer the choice... Please paraphrase .*** also supports OXML as this does not have any financial implications, thus releasing our resources for welfare and development of society.. Till date, India.s stand has been .No. (with comments) to OOXML. Not getting the ISO approval could mean a loss of government business for Microsoft since governments worldwide, including India, prefer standards that are ratified from bodies such as the ISO. Governments are wary of holding digital data in proprietary formats, which could make them hostage to a software vendor. Many store files locally using ODF, which is open and free. States such as Delhi, Kerala and others from the North-East are heavy adopters of ODF. Microsoft is trying to address these issues to get the .No. revised to a .Yes.. A Microsoft spokesperson, when contacted, admitted that letters were indeed sent to the NGOs, but insisted that .one should not read between the lines.. .NGOs represent an important section of the society. It is for this reason that their views were sought to be represented on the committee formed by BIS on the issue of Open XML. The number of NGOs who have expressed their voluntary support on Open XML far exceeds the programme partners we have for Project Jyoti, which is in its fourth year and has since partnered with 13 NGOs with cash and software grants amounting to only Rs 37.5 crore. The decision to send a letter of support was made by each individual organisation based on its own merit. Likewise, many of our partners also chose not to voice their opinion,. the spokesperson said. ODF proponents have a different point of view on the subject. .Microsoft.s underhanded means of advocacy of OOXML only reinforces the conviction that it views OOXML as a tool for furthering monopolistic goals, and plans to recover their investments multi-fold wherever they succeed in getting it accepted as a standard,. says Raj Mathur, one of the founders and currently a member of the Linux Users Group, Delhi. .Standards govern our day-to-day lives and are therefore not mere technical issues. In the IT world, standards are also being hijacked by powerful monopolies because control of standards leads to huge financial gains. At a national level, we must ask ourselves, if this is the way we want to create standards,. says Venkatesh Hariharan, co-founder, Open Source Foundation of India. Microsoft, on its part, notes that OOXML, a recognised standard by ECMA International already and currently being considered in the ISO voting process is a response to evolving technology formats in line with continual evolving technology systems. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Mar 23 22:54:55 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Software Distribution / Turning software In-Reply-To: 20080324000805.GA5363@hserus.net Message-ID: >I could be wrong but this sounds very irelevant to governance, >or the internet. - governance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance The word governance derives from Latin origins that suggest the notion of "steering". One can contrast this sense of "steering" a group or society with the traditional "top-down" approach of governments "driving" society, distinguish between governance's "power to " and governments' "power over". - My guess is that it depends on how One feels, what 'Governance' should encompass. "How we use the Internet" in terms of day-to-day usage and the applications that enable us to access the Internet, are subject to Governance under my construction, of the word here in this space. That's just my opinion, I may be wrong. Regarding the article, I use a Browser every day to access the Internet. the browser is my Saraswati if you will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswati]. So when major Corporations engage in "distribution practices" that "undermines the trust" I belive in, regarding my daily used application(s) [a Browser]. It strikes me as an issue that infringes upon Governance. Discussion related to 'Internet-software/application-distribution-practices' are to me, a very vital area of IG, since I use and depend upon a Browser everyday, like so many Others to access the Internet. The key word here is 'depend', because we 'belive' in the application, which holds our trust. -- Suresh, What is APCAUCE's position "on malware distribution practices" that are used to harvest email addresses and propagate Unsolicited Commercial Email? Is that also excluded from IG? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From icggov at johnlevine.com Sun Mar 23 23:34:59 2008 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 24 Mar 2008 03:34:59 -0000 Subject: [governance] Software Distribution / Turning software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080324033459.93395.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >>I could be wrong but this sounds very irelevant to governance, >>or the internet. >"How we use the Internet" in terms of day-to-day usage and the >applications that enable us to access the Internet, are subject to >Governance under my construction, of the word here in this space. Good point. While we're at it, I can't help but observe that all of the computers we use to connect to the Internet are powered by electricity, primarily mains electricity, much of which is generated by burning fossil fuels. (For example, although I of course have full hydropower offset for the power I use, the power in this part of the US is primarily generated by burning coal.) As I hardly need remind anyone, the CO2 from power generation is a large contributor to global warming. It would be the height of irresponsibility to draw an arbitrary and artificial line to exclude from consideration the greatest problem facing humanity in the coming century. R's, John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 23 23:45:45 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:45:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Software Distribution / Turning software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080324034545.GA8966@hserus.net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com [23/03/08 19:54 -0700]: >Suresh, >What is APCAUCE's position >"on malware distribution practices" that are used to >harvest email addresses and propagate >Unsolicited Commercial Email? > >Is that also excluded from IG? Is it your position that apple's browser, or its software distribution mechanism, is malware? For the rest, please see John Levine's reply. I can't be more sarcastic (and more correct) than he is in replying to you, so I will let his reply stand. srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 24 00:17:22 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:17:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: References: <20080322045743.A9260A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90181FF39@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> An interesting proposition. I for one think it would be useful to gain inside, confidential information from an incumbent on the way the MAG functions. And it is good of Adam to recognize that serving in that role would disqualify him from being on the list recommended by the caucus. Clearly, someone on the IGC Nomcom must decline to be nominated to the MAG by IGC. For example if I am randomly selected for the Nomcom I would be ineligible for caucus nomination to the MAG. But of course if I am not randomly selected for the Nominating Committee I would be free to self-nominate or otherwise get nominated to MAG. Adam raises the question whether he could decline to be nominated by IGC, AND serve on the Nomcom, AND be nominated to MAG by himself or some other organization, independent of the IGC process. This does not strike me as all that bad, but it does not strike me as 100% good, either. If Adam could do it, anyone could do it and it gives me pause to think that half the people on the Nomcom might also be angling for a position on the MAG -- outside the caucus. On net, I would support letting Adam volunteer for MAG. especially in Adam's case since he has such close ties to ISOC and Kummer that he will probably be re-selected anyway. ;-) Another way to handle this, if we had time, would simply be to have the Nomcom interview or teleconference with the existing MAG members. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 3:19 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > I volunteer if there are no objections. > > A member of the MAG commenting on other > "incumbent" members might either be helpful or > might be an undue/unfair influence. Not sure > which. But worth discussing. > > I understand that if selected I wouldn't be > eligible for the list being chosen. But should > that happen I would not withdraw my name from > consideration by the SG as either through > self-nomination or if recommended by some CS > group. I hope members of the appeals teams would > also not be subject to any restriction. > > Do we have a list of people who signed the charter? > > Adam > > > > >Hi All > > > >We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > > >Please also give your views on what should we do if we don¹t reach 25. > > > >(1)     Should we draw 5 members in any case > >from the pool available, say, by the end of > >Monday? > >(2)     Should we go for direct elections of MAG > >nominees (we have a voting software now, which > >has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose > >software I understand is being used by many > >other IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > >Parminder > > > >The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > >Milton Mueller > >Jeremy Malcolm > >Suresh Ramasubramanian > >Jeremy Shtern > >Robert Guerra > >Bret Faucett > >SCHOMBE Baudouin > >Carlos Afonso > >Ian Peter > >Lee W. McKnight > >Maja Anjelkovic > >Gurumurthy K > >Rudi Vansnick > >Karen Banks > >Michael Gurstein > >David Goldstein > >Philippe Dam > >Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 00:56:31 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:56:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: References: <20080323110854.1501769239@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90181FF3A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > "10. With regard to the MAG's operating principles and selection > criteria, the group reaffirmed that members served in their > individual capacity. Right. Yeah. That's why we have 20 slots assigned to those individuals called "governments" and divvied up according to regions; that's why Theresa Swinehart has been known to break out into impassioned critiques of ICANN in the middle of MAG meetings with no fear of losing her job. And that's why the ICC/BASIS representatives occasionally blurt out, "you know, I think those Russian guys really have a point about US unilateral control!" C'mon, folks we all know a double standard when we see one. One the one hand powerful commercial and governmental interests insist on slots and quotas for their representatives, but civil society is supposed to be these cute little individualized pets wit no allegiance to anything. I don't begrudge ISOC, AUDA, Nominet, etc. the right to develop and advocate positions on the MAG, I just want public interest reps to be able to do the same thing. > These are not the caucus' rules, we're not bound by them, but it > would be a good idea to keep them in mind (if we submit a batch of > names saying they are the representatives of the caucus, people we > have power of recall over, etc, this may not sit well with the idea > that members serve in their individual capacity. The MAG's > recommendations came from the consultation process.) Um, the MAG's recommendations came from the MAG. I was at the latest consultation. This "individual capacity" stuff was not discussed. Anyway, are you telling me that ICC/BASIS has no power of recall over the person representing them on the MAG? That their reps don't advocate anything at all like the official ICC/BASIS statements? That the comments and basic positions of the person from ISOC are not vetted by the organization or do not reflect the organization's position? Could you really say that with a straight face? > I think Milton and Bill suggested MAG members needed few skills. Huh? It must have been "the other Milton." I think MAG members need lots of skills. I also think the worst thing you could do to an innocent and inexperienced CS person is to throw them into that highly politicized environment with no lodestone but their "individual capacity." > Should be willing to do work at the IGF meetings, from setting up > tables to moderating workshops etc. I don't recall seeing any of the government representatives setting up tables, Adam. I look forward to future IGFs even more 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Mar 24 05:51:01 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:51:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90181FF3A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi On 3/24/08 5:56 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> I think Milton and Bill suggested MAG members needed few skills. > > Huh? It must have been "the other Milton." I think MAG members need lots > of skills. I also think the worst thing you could do to an innocent and > inexperienced CS person is to throw them into that highly politicized > environment with no lodestone but their "individual capacity." FWIW I went back and looked and what I said was not that any dummy fool off the street can do the job well, but rather > So re: Vittorio's question earlier today about whether the 1/3 shouldn't > be annual retroactively, meaning 2/3 this time, the expectation is that > no, it'll only be 1/3 going forward, presumably because of the > specialized skill sets needed to select main session speakers, ascertain > that workshop proposals are multistakeholder, etc, which require years > of experience to develop? In other words, if there's a rationale for the continuity said to be essential and require limited turn over, specialized skill sets is not it, as the tasks involved are hardly arcane. Full stop. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 24 06:31:34 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:01:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080324103143.DA13567860@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All We did a rethink on the nomcom process and the last date for volunteering now is by the end of 26th, i.e. Wednesday. We now only need 3-4 more volunteers, which I hope we will get over the next 2/3 days, till Wednesday night. We need to fold this process up as soon as possible because an announcement calling for nomination is expected very soon, and given that the new MAG needs to meet by mid-May, not much time will be given for submitting the names. This is the reason that I have brought the last date for volunteering forward to 26th. Hope there will be no objection to it. The full schedule of the process is Last date for volunteering for nomcom - March 26th Challenges and corrections of published names - by 27th Final list of names published - 28th, Friday Seeds (sources to be declared later today) for RFC program available on 29th, Saturday Nomcom names announced - 30th, Sunday Any challenges - 31st, Monday Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens- April 1st. Nomination close - April 8th Nomcom confers between 9th and 16th. Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th 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 Mon Mar 24 06:54:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:24:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080324103143.DA13567860@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080324105434.6E121A6D36@smtp2.electricembers.net> The seed sources that will be used for the appointing a nomcom for MAG nominations are http://www.lotto.ie/ lotto results wiming numbers (excluding bonus number) http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/home/home.do lotto results (excluding bonus ball) http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_numbers.asp powerball winning numbers (excluding powerball) Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > > Hi All > > We did a rethink on the nomcom process and the last date for volunteering > now is by the end of 26th, i.e. Wednesday. We now only need 3-4 more > volunteers, which I hope we will get over the next 2/3 days, till > Wednesday > night. > > We need to fold this process up as soon as possible because an > announcement > calling for nomination is expected very soon, and given that the new MAG > needs to meet by mid-May, not much time will be given for submitting the > names. This is the reason that I have brought the last date for > volunteering > forward to 26th. Hope there will be no objection to it. > > The full schedule of the process is > > Last date for volunteering for nomcom - March 26th > > Challenges and corrections of published names - by 27th > > Final list of names published - 28th, Friday > > Seeds (sources to be declared later today) for RFC program available on > 29th, Saturday > > Nomcom names announced - 30th, Sunday > > Any challenges - 31st, Monday > > Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens- April 1st. > > Nomination close - April 8th > > Nomcom confers between 9th and 16th. > > Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th > > > 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 Mon Mar 24 07:05:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:35:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080324110530.296D5E0451@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Do we have a list of people who signed the charter? > > Adam In fact, this is an issue which has been bothering me a bit, and is partly responsible for the delay in co-coordinator elections. I want the group's advice on this. The charter clearly defines the membership of the IGC as constituting those who have endorsed its charter. We have a list of 58 people who voted during the charter vote. But among these, 3 voted against. So, we do not have a list of those who voted for The ballot for the co-coordinator election of 2006 carried a proviso that "by voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society participant of the Internet Governance Caucus" I am trying to obtain the full list of those who voted in this election. However I still wonder if an affirmation, that too only by implication and not as a forthright statement, of being a 'CS participant of IGC' itself can mean that one has endorsed the charter. It is likely that someone who does enter into discussion on the list, but does not mean to endorse the charter can say yes to this proviso and proceed to vote. And not be dishonest or untruthful in doing so. I would much prefer a prior endorsement of the charter, rather than an act which is a (secondary) part of voting. But that is only my personal view. I think endorsement of the charter should be a clear and positive step in enrolling as a full member of the IGC. To All CS Rio attendees whom I wrote an email inviting them to join the IGC (and many have) I clearly asked whether they also endorse the charter, and many have. This is the only clear list of charter endorsees that I have. Members' views are solicited on this. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 12:49 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > I volunteer if there are no objections. > > A member of the MAG commenting on other > "incumbent" members might either be helpful or > might be an undue/unfair influence. Not sure > which. But worth discussing. > > I understand that if selected I wouldn't be > eligible for the list being chosen. But should > that happen I would not withdraw my name from > consideration by the SG as either through > self-nomination or if recommended by some CS > group. I hope members of the appeals teams would > also not be subject to any restriction. > > Do we have a list of people who signed the charter? > > Adam > > > > >Hi All > > > >We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers. > > > >Please also give your views on what should we do if we don¹t reach 25. > > > >(1)     Should we draw 5 members in any case > >from the pool available, say, by the end of > >Monday? > >(2)     Should we go for direct elections of MAG > >nominees (we have a voting software now, which > >has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose > >software I understand is being used by many > >other IG orgs. And groups) > > > > > >Parminder > > > >The present list of volunteers is as follows. > > > >Milton Mueller > >Jeremy Malcolm > >Suresh Ramasubramanian > >Jeremy Shtern > >Robert Guerra > >Bret Faucett > >SCHOMBE Baudouin > >Carlos Afonso > >Ian Peter > >Lee W. McKnight > >Maja Anjelkovic > >Gurumurthy K > >Rudi Vansnick > >Karen Banks > >Michael Gurstein > >David Goldstein > >Philippe Dam > >Anita Gurumuthy > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 08:36:27 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Software Distribution / Turning software In-Reply-To: 20080324034545.GA8966@hserus.net Message-ID: >Is it your position that apple's browser, or its software distribution >mechanism, is malware? Its the 'condition' under which the software distribution mechanism is being used. My position is that: it violates the Public's Trust, in a system (the Internet). The Public 'assumes' the Internet's 'Terms-of-Use' are proactivily in thier favor. To me it is no different that having your eMail address compromised for spam, or your Browser hyjacked by deceptively clever methods. I agree with John Lilly (Mozilla CEO), "Apple has made it incredibly easy -- the default, even -- for users to install ride along software that they didn't ask for, and maybe didn't want," ... "This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices. It's wrong because it undermines the trust that we're all trying to build with users. Because it means that an update isn't just an update, but is maybe something more. Because it ultimately undermines the safety of users on the Web by eroding that relationship. It's a bad practice and should stop." Malware Pirates also make it 'incredibly easy' in fact seamless installations of application via the net. Users can no longer Trust their own devices because they cannot depend upon the Internet to be Safe from near stealth application installations. I still feel that Internet 'distribution practices' of this kind are subject to IG. Sorry you feel differently. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 08:44:26 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:44:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Software Distribution / Turning software In-Reply-To: References: 20080324034545.GA8966@hserus.net Message-ID: <01b501c88dac$cc628880$65279980$@net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > Its the 'condition' under which the software distribution mechanism is > being used. My position is that: it violates the Public's Trust, in a system > (the Internet). Apple's software distribution mechanism used to distribute an apple product. Like IE is shipped using Windows Update. At the most it is a question of competition policies. Not of governance. Or of public trust. 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Mar 24 09:23:14 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:23:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90181FF3A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080323110854.1501769239@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90181FF3A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47E7AB42.5060802@rits.org.br> This is basically what I have been saying in caucus meetings and in the lists... I find it funny the CS people in the MAG are the ones left with the task of honoring the Chatham House rules (or keeping discretion to a point of sometimes not telling anything about what goes on inside the MAG to the caucus), for example, as it would be a joke to imagine government people not reporting to their superiors (and of course, Virginia, from there on everybody would respect confidentiality rules), ditto members of big organizations and companies. The hard fact is that many (not all!) people in the MAG, be then CS or not, will act as that little tick -- hard to remove. Meaning they will do their best to get to the secretariat the message they, please, want to stay -- either by personal interests and/or by order of their superiors. So NomCom or not NomCom, we will probably see more of the same in the upcoming MAG. frt rgds --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> "10. With regard to the MAG's operating principles and selection >> criteria, the group reaffirmed that members served in their >> individual capacity. > > Right. Yeah. That's why we have 20 slots assigned to those individuals > called "governments" and divvied up according to regions; that's why > Theresa Swinehart has been known to break out into impassioned critiques > of ICANN in the middle of MAG meetings with no fear of losing her job. > And that's why the ICC/BASIS representatives occasionally blurt out, > "you know, I think those Russian guys really have a point about US > unilateral control!" > > C'mon, folks we all know a double standard when we see one. > > One the one hand powerful commercial and governmental interests insist > on slots and quotas for their representatives, but civil society is > supposed to be these cute little individualized pets wit no allegiance > to anything. I don't begrudge ISOC, AUDA, Nominet, etc. the right to > develop and advocate positions on the MAG, I just want public interest > reps to be able to do the same thing. > >> These are not the caucus' rules, we're not bound by them, but it >> would be a good idea to keep them in mind (if we submit a batch of >> names saying they are the representatives of the caucus, people we >> have power of recall over, etc, this may not sit well with the idea >> that members serve in their individual capacity. The MAG's >> recommendations came from the consultation process.) > > Um, the MAG's recommendations came from the MAG. I was at the latest > consultation. This "individual capacity" stuff was not discussed. > > Anyway, are you telling me that ICC/BASIS has no power of recall over > the person representing them on the MAG? That their reps don't advocate > anything at all like the official ICC/BASIS statements? That the > comments and basic positions of the person from ISOC are not vetted by > the organization or do not reflect the organization's position? > > Could you really say that with a straight face? > >> I think Milton and Bill suggested MAG members needed few skills. > > Huh? It must have been "the other Milton." I think MAG members need lots > of skills. I also think the worst thing you could do to an innocent and > inexperienced CS person is to throw them into that highly politicized > environment with no lodestone but their "individual capacity." > >> Should be willing to do work at the IGF meetings, from setting up >> tables to moderating workshops etc. > > I don't recall seeing any of the government representatives setting up > tables, Adam. I look forward to future IGFs even more 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 15:02:07 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:32:07 -0430 Subject: [governance] Current composition of MAG References: <20080319162801.D3D7CA6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <01c301c88de1$921cd420$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Hi all. Please excuse a novice request, but I am unable to find a complete list of the current composition of the MAG. Does anyone have a link? Thanks so much! Ginger ----- Original Message ----- From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Meryem Marzouki' Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:57 AM Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG Meryem > If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in > agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what you've > stated. > Me neither. Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:10 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Parminder, > > I think we have to make a distinction between : > > 1- the broader outreach of the IGC, and generally speaking, its > general efforts to promote what it perceives as shared concerns and > positions from civil society at large, according to its charters' > vision, mission, objectives and tasks. I entirely agree with you on > this, and this is provided by the charter anyway, as you pointed out. > The consequence is that yes, this doesn't prevent IGC to recommend > (e.g. for MAG membership), non current IGC members. Actually, if I > remember well, this already happened during the first selection process. > It's up to the nomcom to take or not into account, among the whole > set of selection criteria, the prior engagement of the applicant with > the IGC, depending on the applicant's overall profile and statement > of intent. > Obviously, once nominated by IGC and then selected by the UN SG, the > MAG member must become engaged in the IGC (and in particular > subscribed to its mailing list) at least during his/her MAG membership. > > and > > 2- the representation issue, in terms of commitments to the IGC from > the eventually selected MAG members: being accountable to the IGC, > promoting and defending the IGC positions, etc. > > If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in > agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what you've > stated. > > My point is that any selected MAG member who is present on the IGC > recommendation list sent to the UN SG should consider him/herself as > representative of the IGC in terms of commitments, whether or not > this person have also been proposed by another CS constituency. > > For instance, if person X is selected by the UN SG as MAG member, > after having been recommended by IGC as well as by three other > constituencies (or individuals) A, B, and C, X commits anyway 100% > and is 100% accountable to IGC. And to ensure this, this commitment > has to be indicated prior to any selection by IGC. Obviously, it is > left to X's own ethics to make sure that IGC, A, B and C's interests > and positions, as well as requirements in terms of commitment, are > not in contradiction with each others. > > Last but not least, the stakeholders repartition of the MAG as well > as the last IGC statement's demand that final selection made by UN SG > clearly indicates what stakeholder group a MAG member is associated > with, make it hardly compatible that a person nominated by IGC be > also nominated by a constituency who presents itself in another > stakeholder category than CS. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 19 mars 08 à 06:10, Parminder a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Bill and Meryem have raised the issue of whom does the IGC > > represent, and accordingly whether we should only nominate IGC > > members, or consider some outsiders as well. > > > > > > > > I had tried to raise and discuss this issue in my email dt 16th, > > which is enclosed. And it is certainly a very important issue. > > > > > > > > First, about Meryem's point > > > > > > > > I don't agree with IGC > > > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC. > > > > > > > > Which is somewhat allied to Bill's point > > > > > > > > > I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be > > > > > submitting > > > > > names from elsewhere. The IGC served as a focal point and funnel > > for > > > > > other > > > > > CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, > > but WSIS > > > > > is > > > > > over and so is that coalition. > > > > > > > > Here, I draw your attention to the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > IGC-charter_final-061014.html) which not only makes the point of > > IGc's WSIS lineage but also in its mission statement stresses the > > point of being/ providing a forum for wider CS inputs, coordination > > of CS advocacy etc. And if there were still any ambiguity in this, > > the list of 'objectives and tasks' is quite clear about linkages to > > other CS groups, outreach to them, and even representing them in > > some way. In fact, 6 out of 8 points under 'objectives and tasks' > > speaks about this association with other CS groups. > > > > > > > > I think, as per the charter, IGC clearly looks at itself in some > > way as representing a wider CS constituency in IGC process. and I > > think such issue-based cross representation is also the way to go > > in a network age, for the greatest effectiveness of CS. > > > > > > > > It is also important to see and understand such wider > > representation in a somewhat different, and more topical, context. > > We cant expect a global body of 40 to reserve five members for a > > group of 60 or so individuals, isn't it. And we are actually asking > > for increased representation. In numbers, a group like ISOC > > (whatever be its stakeholder status) is much much bigger. Many NGOs > > and most CS networks are in fact much bigger. So, obviously our > > claim to the kind of representation we ask for can only be on the > > basis of being a kind of key CS front group (loosely put) in the IG > > arena, for a wider CS constituency, with which we should try to > > keep making connections, as per our charter. This we hardly ever do > > though, preferring to live in our splendid isolation. This needs to > > bother us, and we should take corrective steps, but not to throw > > away the semblance of this wider CS representative-ness, with which > > will be thrown away most of our legitimacy. > > > > > > > > This is why I spoke of IGC filling in a CS vacuum -with however > > thin and shaky base - in IG area (which McTim refutes), and trying > > to do a better job of it. This is also why issues of, what is CS, > > what CS we represent, how to bring ourselves in a closer alignment > > with wider CS constituencies ( involved in global policy arena) is > > an important issue - which many just refuse to discuss, and other > > consider all such discussions as some kind of a personal conspiracy > > that I and some others are trying to hatch in this group. > > > > > > > > This said, to address the practical issue raised by Bill > > > > > > > > why would we allocate scarce > > > > > nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those > > > > > roles? > > > > > > > > First, it is not very likely that many names from outside IGC will > > actually be suggested. Most people/ groups with a like-minded > > interest in IG, and interested in IGF processes, I understand are > > already in the IGC. Second, we can request any outsider, we wish to > > nominate, to get engaged with the group, at least in the period of > > the MAG membership, and if our selection is good, I expect the > > person to so get involved. In any case we will have core existing > > IGC members in the MAG, a few of them if they do the task of > > representing IGC in the MAG is more than enough. The most important > > issue is to keep the identity of IGC as the main group representing > > wider CS constituencies and interests intact, and further > > strengthen it. If we don't, we will be doing it our own peril. > > > > > > > > I think these issues being central to IGC's identity and > > representative-ness deserve a discussion here. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > > > > > Adam, and all, > > > > > > > > > > Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a > > > > > > much more principled approach. > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. > > > > > > > > > > Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC. > > > > > It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty comfortable > > > > > to remind this as someone who entirely disagree on the nomcom > > process > > > > > to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision when > > > > > adopting the IGC charter, and still accordingly is never > > volunteering > > > > > for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely > > > > > right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop. I'm with > > > > > Diderot on this (and on many other issues as well:)) > > > > > > > > > > Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be > > > > > recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All nomcom > > > > > participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from > > > > > selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html). > > > > > > > > > > First rule: don't change the rules during the process (or, worse, > > > > > retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law. > > > > > > > > > > > And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about > > > > > > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what > > > > > > we're doing or submit names independently. > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC > > > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder > > > > > recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be > > > > > eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their > > > > > acceptance email) > > > > > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC > > > > > positions, including nomcom etc...". > > > > > > > > > > First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG > > > > > nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the > > > > > accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. If someone is proposed > > > > > by another entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't > > > > > reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > De : "Parminder" > > Date : 16 mars 2008 15:14:07 HNEC > > À : , "'Jeanette Hofmann'" > > , "'Milton L Mueller'" > > Cc : "'Meryem Marzouki'" > > Objet : RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > Répondre à : , "Parminder" > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to offer a couple of points, in my personal capacity, > > on this > > very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG > > nominations. > > > > The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central > > point > > here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard. > > > > First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in their > > personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This is > > meant as a > > corrective to a possible situation where seats are allocated to > > institutions, and whoever comes representing the concerned > > institutions gets > > to sit and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously > > difficult to > > implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most MAG > > participants, no one really seriously believes that they completely > > speak > > only on basis of their personal convictions, without any reference > > to the > > stands and views of the groups they are known to be associated with. > > > > Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term 'personal > > capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean that a MAG > > member has no > > representative-ness at all. As Milton colorfully described, this is > > not an > > invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You > > don't sit > > their because of any special personal attributes (that would be > > elitist), > > you are there in some representative capacity - whether of a > > constituency, > > or a set of ideals. > > > > However, especially for a CS member, since CS by definition is a > > less-institutionalized category, I do agree that it is not possible > > for a CS > > member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an > > element of > > 'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability to CS values and > > positions) > > here. So, we should have some promises and processes for reporting > > back, > > representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of > > 'personal > > capacity' based representation. We need to find an in between > > arrangement, > > as Jeanette suggests. > > > > I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true representative' > > positions > > are coming as a (I think legitimate) reaction against the way most/ > > some IGC > > nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so > > literally that > > there has been very little if any 'representative-ness' character > > in their > > membership. > > > > There is another, important, angle here. When we make the demand to be > > represented in MAG, and be represented in even greater number than > > we are > > now, we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what > > and who > > we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we a > > collections 60 > > something members who have signed on the IGC charter (each in her > > personal > > capacity). A discussion list would not mean anything in such a > > context. A > > group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity, would > > still be just > > that. So, obviously any merit in our claims comes from (some degree > > of) our > > 'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative- > > ness' > > cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG members. > > > > Another issue is whether we will nominate from among IGC members > > alone. This > > opens the issue of defining members. The charter defines membership > > as those > > who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among all IGC > > e-list > > participants. Or consider anyone who we may think is CS, and still > > request a > > certain degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member. > > > > In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a discussion > > e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of those who are > > subscribed > > to the charter and (3)IGC is a kind of a front - or an interface - > > of a > > wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is > > also > > strongly implied in our charter. > > > > It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have some > > basis and > > legitimacy to expect that a couple of names we suggest to be > > included in the > > MAG. But for this while we should internally understand and affirm > > this 'CS > > front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS representation), > > we should > > also have some sense of what is the nature of that wider CS which > > we may > > represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have > > consistently refused to engage in. > > > > So while we will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our > > understanding that many/most CS members who have direct interest in > > IGF do > > in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to nominate > > some who > > may not do so at present. Generally, such people may be of a > > relatively high > > profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we > > still > > think they will be good MAG members. > > > > It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to keep > > sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our choices are > > right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they will, as may > > regular IGC > > member that become MAG members, will certainly push views beyond the > > constraints of only the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some > > distinction, one may expect that the existing IGC member nominees > > to have a > > much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star' outside-IGC CS > > persons > > that may get our backing. But the latter still shd do enough > > interaction. > > > > Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in between > > 'true > > representative' of the IGC and some amount of 'personal capacity' > > with a > > broader accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am > > misunderstood, I > > am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this exclusive > > 'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed MAG members > > have > > taken. And the situation should change, and change a lot. > > > > We should codify some processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS > > nominees > > that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in the > > emails that have been posted. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > > Cc: Meryem Marzouki > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". > > > > > > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a > > > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > > > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid > > and > > > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus > > > changed its mind in the meantime? > > > > > > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should > > > promote and defend the caucus positions > > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they > > > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual > > capacity" but > > > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require > > that > > > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to > > > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? > > > > > > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What > > would a > > > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind > > and kicks > > > out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... > > > > > > > > > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to > > > apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own > > position > > > paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and > > enjoyed > > > unusually broad consensus. > > > > > > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more > > > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively > > > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's > > > agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and > > understand the > > > positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to > > agree on a > > > common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the > > nominee > > > should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee > > doesn't > > > agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that > > consensus > > > in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. > > > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not > > helpful in > > > a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus > > depends > > > on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of > > views and, > > > above all, to compromise. > > > > > > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all > > caucus > > > nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case > > of a > > > recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs > > members > > > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There > > are other > > > channels outside the reach of our rules. > > > > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and > > important > > > > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more > > carefully but > > > > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> we have > > > >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: > > > >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of > > course > > > >> including those who have already been on the MAG > > > >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent > > > >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote > > > >> within the MAG > > > >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider > > the > > > >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the > > > >> candidate has done so far > > > >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the > > > >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions > > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to > > the > > > >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as > > > >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true > > representatives of > > > >> the IGC. > > > >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following > > the rules > > > >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- > > > >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. > > Since the > > > >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in > > their > > > >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC > > > >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and > > > >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > > > > > > > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom > > process > > > > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be > > considered the > > > > ground rules for the NomCom. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Mar 24 15:43:19 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:43:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Current composition of MAG In-Reply-To: <01c301c88de1$921cd420$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> References: <20080319162801.D3D7CA6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <01c301c88de1$921cd420$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <404DE87A-5A7F-4EE6-8192-06697BB60DB6@psg.com> http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members.htm On 24 Mar 2008, at 20:02, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi all. Please excuse a novice request, but I am unable to find a > complete list of the current composition of the MAG. Does anyone > have a link? Thanks so much! > Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 24 19:40:18 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:40:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Current composition of MAG In-Reply-To: <01c301c88de1$921cd420$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> References: <20080319162801.D3D7CA6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <01c301c88de1$921cd420$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <47E83BE2.80201@rits.org.br> Hi Ginger, just go to: http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members.htm frt rgds --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi all. Please excuse a novice request, but I am unable to find a complete list of the current composition of the MAG. Does anyone have a link? Thanks so much! > Ginger > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Parminder > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Meryem Marzouki' > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:57 AM > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > Meryem > > > If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in > > agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what you've > > stated. > > > > Me neither. Thanks. Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:10 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > Parminder, > > > > I think we have to make a distinction between : > > > > 1- the broader outreach of the IGC, and generally speaking, its > > general efforts to promote what it perceives as shared concerns and > > positions from civil society at large, according to its charters' > > vision, mission, objectives and tasks. I entirely agree with you on > > this, and this is provided by the charter anyway, as you pointed out. > > The consequence is that yes, this doesn't prevent IGC to recommend > > (e.g. for MAG membership), non current IGC members. Actually, if I > > remember well, this already happened during the first selection process. > > It's up to the nomcom to take or not into account, among the whole > > set of selection criteria, the prior engagement of the applicant with > > the IGC, depending on the applicant's overall profile and statement > > of intent. > > Obviously, once nominated by IGC and then selected by the UN SG, the > > MAG member must become engaged in the IGC (and in particular > > subscribed to its mailing list) at least during his/her MAG membership. > > > > and > > > > 2- the representation issue, in terms of commitments to the IGC from > > the eventually selected MAG members: being accountable to the IGC, > > promoting and defending the IGC positions, etc. > > > > If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in > > agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what you've > > stated. > > > > My point is that any selected MAG member who is present on the IGC > > recommendation list sent to the UN SG should consider him/herself as > > representative of the IGC in terms of commitments, whether or not > > this person have also been proposed by another CS constituency. > > > > For instance, if person X is selected by the UN SG as MAG member, > > after having been recommended by IGC as well as by three other > > constituencies (or individuals) A, B, and C, X commits anyway 100% > > and is 100% accountable to IGC. And to ensure this, this commitment > > has to be indicated prior to any selection by IGC. Obviously, it is > > left to X's own ethics to make sure that IGC, A, B and C's interests > > and positions, as well as requirements in terms of commitment, are > > not in contradiction with each others. > > > > Last but not least, the stakeholders repartition of the MAG as well > > as the last IGC statement's demand that final selection made by UN SG > > clearly indicates what stakeholder group a MAG member is associated > > with, make it hardly compatible that a person nominated by IGC be > > also nominated by a constituency who presents itself in another > > stakeholder category than CS. > > > > Best, > > Meryem > > > > Le 19 mars 08 à 06:10, Parminder a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill and Meryem have raised the issue of whom does the IGC > > > represent, and accordingly whether we should only nominate IGC > > > members, or consider some outsiders as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > I had tried to raise and discuss this issue in my email dt 16th, > > > which is enclosed. And it is certainly a very important issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > First, about Meryem's point > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with IGC > > > > > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > > > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is somewhat allied to Bill's point > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be > > > > > > > submitting > > > > > > > names from elsewhere. The IGC served as a focal point and funnel > > > for > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, > > > but WSIS > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > over and so is that coalition. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here, I draw your attention to the charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > IGC-charter_final-061014.html) which not only makes the point of > > > IGc's WSIS lineage but also in its mission statement stresses the > > > point of being/ providing a forum for wider CS inputs, coordination > > > of CS advocacy etc. And if there were still any ambiguity in this, > > > the list of 'objectives and tasks' is quite clear about linkages to > > > other CS groups, outreach to them, and even representing them in > > > some way. In fact, 6 out of 8 points under 'objectives and tasks' > > > speaks about this association with other CS groups. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, as per the charter, IGC clearly looks at itself in some > > > way as representing a wider CS constituency in IGC process. and I > > > think such issue-based cross representation is also the way to go > > > in a network age, for the greatest effectiveness of CS. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is also important to see and understand such wider > > > representation in a somewhat different, and more topical, context. > > > We cant expect a global body of 40 to reserve five members for a > > > group of 60 or so individuals, isn't it. And we are actually asking > > > for increased representation. In numbers, a group like ISOC > > > (whatever be its stakeholder status) is much much bigger. Many NGOs > > > and most CS networks are in fact much bigger. So, obviously our > > > claim to the kind of representation we ask for can only be on the > > > basis of being a kind of key CS front group (loosely put) in the IG > > > arena, for a wider CS constituency, with which we should try to > > > keep making connections, as per our charter. This we hardly ever do > > > though, preferring to live in our splendid isolation. This needs to > > > bother us, and we should take corrective steps, but not to throw > > > away the semblance of this wider CS representative-ness, with which > > > will be thrown away most of our legitimacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why I spoke of IGC filling in a CS vacuum -with however > > > thin and shaky base - in IG area (which McTim refutes), and trying > > > to do a better job of it. This is also why issues of, what is CS, > > > what CS we represent, how to bring ourselves in a closer alignment > > > with wider CS constituencies ( involved in global policy arena) is > > > an important issue - which many just refuse to discuss, and other > > > consider all such discussions as some kind of a personal conspiracy > > > that I and some others are trying to hatch in this group. > > > > > > > > > > > > This said, to address the practical issue raised by Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > why would we allocate scarce > > > > > > > nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those > > > > > > > roles? > > > > > > > > > > > > First, it is not very likely that many names from outside IGC will > > > actually be suggested. Most people/ groups with a like-minded > > > interest in IG, and interested in IGF processes, I understand are > > > already in the IGC. Second, we can request any outsider, we wish to > > > nominate, to get engaged with the group, at least in the period of > > > the MAG membership, and if our selection is good, I expect the > > > person to so get involved. In any case we will have core existing > > > IGC members in the MAG, a few of them if they do the task of > > > representing IGC in the MAG is more than enough. The most important > > > issue is to keep the identity of IGC as the main group representing > > > wider CS constituencies and interests intact, and further > > > strengthen it. If we don't, we will be doing it our own peril. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think these issues being central to IGC's identity and > > > representative-ness deserve a discussion here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adam, and all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a > > > > > > > > much more principled approach. > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC. > > > > > > > It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty comfortable > > > > > > > to remind this as someone who entirely disagree on the nomcom > > > process > > > > > > > to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision when > > > > > > > adopting the IGC charter, and still accordingly is never > > > volunteering > > > > > > > for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely > > > > > > > right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop. I'm with > > > > > > > Diderot on this (and on many other issues as well:)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be > > > > > > > recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All nomcom > > > > > > > participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from > > > > > > > selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see > > > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First rule: don't change the rules during the process (or, worse, > > > > > > > retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about > > > > > > > > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what > > > > > > > > we're doing or submit names independently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC > > > > > > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is, > > > > > > > i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder > > > > > > > recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be > > > > > > > eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their > > > > > > > acceptance email) > > > > > > > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC > > > > > > > positions, including nomcom etc...". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG > > > > > > > nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the > > > > > > > accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. If someone is proposed > > > > > > > by another entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't > > > > > > > reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Meryem____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > De : "Parminder" > > > Date : 16 mars 2008 15:14:07 HNEC > > > À : , "'Jeanette Hofmann'" > > > , "'Milton L Mueller'" > > > Cc : "'Meryem Marzouki'" > > > Objet : RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > Répondre à : , "Parminder" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to offer a couple of points, in my personal capacity, > > > on this > > > very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG > > > nominations. > > > > > > The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central > > > point > > > here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard. > > > > > > First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in their > > > personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This is > > > meant as a > > > corrective to a possible situation where seats are allocated to > > > institutions, and whoever comes representing the concerned > > > institutions gets > > > to sit and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously > > > difficult to > > > implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most MAG > > > participants, no one really seriously believes that they completely > > > speak > > > only on basis of their personal convictions, without any reference > > > to the > > > stands and views of the groups they are known to be associated with. > > > > > > Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term 'personal > > > capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean that a MAG > > > member has no > > > representative-ness at all. As Milton colorfully described, this is > > > not an > > > invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You > > > don't sit > > > their because of any special personal attributes (that would be > > > elitist), > > > you are there in some representative capacity - whether of a > > > constituency, > > > or a set of ideals. > > > > > > However, especially for a CS member, since CS by definition is a > > > less-institutionalized category, I do agree that it is not possible > > > for a CS > > > member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an > > > element of > > > 'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability to CS values and > > > positions) > > > here. So, we should have some promises and processes for reporting > > > back, > > > representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of > > > 'personal > > > capacity' based representation. We need to find an in between > > > arrangement, > > > as Jeanette suggests. > > > > > > I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true representative' > > > positions > > > are coming as a (I think legitimate) reaction against the way most/ > > > some IGC > > > nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so > > > literally that > > > there has been very little if any 'representative-ness' character > > > in their > > > membership. > > > > > > There is another, important, angle here. When we make the demand to be > > > represented in MAG, and be represented in even greater number than > > > we are > > > now, we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what > > > and who > > > we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we a > > > collections 60 > > > something members who have signed on the IGC charter (each in her > > > personal > > > capacity). A discussion list would not mean anything in such a > > > context. A > > > group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity, would > > > still be just > > > that. So, obviously any merit in our claims comes from (some degree > > > of) our > > > 'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative- > > > ness' > > > cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG members. > > > > > > Another issue is whether we will nominate from among IGC members > > > alone. This > > > opens the issue of defining members. The charter defines membership > > > as those > > > who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among all IGC > > > e-list > > > participants. Or consider anyone who we may think is CS, and still > > > request a > > > certain degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member. > > > > > > In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a discussion > > > e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of those who are > > > subscribed > > > to the charter and (3)IGC is a kind of a front - or an interface - > > > of a > > > wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is > > > also > > > strongly implied in our charter. > > > > > > It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have some > > > basis and > > > legitimacy to expect that a couple of names we suggest to be > > > included in the > > > MAG. But for this while we should internally understand and affirm > > > this 'CS > > > front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS representation), > > > we should > > > also have some sense of what is the nature of that wider CS which > > > we may > > > represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have > > > consistently refused to engage in. > > > > > > So while we will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our > > > understanding that many/most CS members who have direct interest in > > > IGF do > > > in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to nominate > > > some who > > > may not do so at present. Generally, such people may be of a > > > relatively high > > > profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we > > > still > > > think they will be good MAG members. > > > > > > It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to keep > > > sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our choices are > > > right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they will, as may > > > regular IGC > > > member that become MAG members, will certainly push views beyond the > > > constraints of only the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some > > > distinction, one may expect that the existing IGC member nominees > > > to have a > > > much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star' outside-IGC CS > > > persons > > > that may get our backing. But the latter still shd do enough > > > interaction. > > > > > > Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in between > > > 'true > > > representative' of the IGC and some amount of 'personal capacity' > > > with a > > > broader accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am > > > misunderstood, I > > > am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this exclusive > > > 'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed MAG members > > > have > > > taken. And the situation should change, and change a lot. > > > > > > We should codify some processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS > > > nominees > > > that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in the > > > emails that have been posted. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > > > Cc: Meryem Marzouki > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG > > > > > > > > Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules". > > > > > > > > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a > > > > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members > > > > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid > > > and > > > > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus > > > > changed its mind in the meantime? > > > > > > > > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should > > > > promote and defend the caucus positions > > > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they > > > > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual > > > capacity" but > > > > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require > > > that > > > > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to > > > > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own? > > > > > > > > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What > > > would a > > > > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind > > > and kicks > > > > out the person? A bit far fetched I would say... > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to > > > > apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own > > > position > > > > paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and > > > enjoyed > > > > unusually broad consensus. > > > > > > > > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more > > > > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively > > > > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's > > > > agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and > > > understand the > > > > positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to > > > agree on a > > > > common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the > > > nominee > > > > should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee > > > doesn't > > > > agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that > > > consensus > > > > in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with. > > > > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not > > > helpful in > > > > a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus > > > depends > > > > on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of > > > views and, > > > > above all, to compromise. > > > > > > > > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all > > > caucus > > > > nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case > > > of a > > > > recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs > > > members > > > > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There > > > are other > > > > channels outside the reach of our rules. > > > > > > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and > > > important > > > > > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more > > > carefully but > > > > > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this: > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > >> we have > > > > >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like: > > > > >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of > > > course > > > > >> including those who have already been on the MAG > > > > >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent > > > > >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote > > > > >> within the MAG > > > > >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider > > > the > > > > >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the > > > > >> candidate has done so far > > > > >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the > > > > >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions > > > > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to > > > the > > > > >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as > > > > >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true > > > representatives of > > > > >> the IGC. > > > > >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following > > > the rules > > > > >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- > > > > >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. > > > Since the > > > > >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in > > > their > > > > >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC > > > > >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and > > > > >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall. > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom > > > process > > > > > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be > > > considered the > > > > > ground rules for the NomCom. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 08:07:08 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:07:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 Message-ID: Deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops, best practice forums and open forums is 30 April 2008. Not many weeks away. Details in the MAG meeting report and most of the relevant information copied below. Issues the caucus recommended in contributions for the last consultation have not all be included. It would not hurt to quickly re-submit those comments (amended to take account of the MAG's report). Again, if you organized a workshop in Rio and have not yet submitted a report, please do so. (about 80 events in Rio and not many have submitted a report, which if anyone really cares about the IGF producing outcomes, is a bit silly.) Adam Draft Programme Outline General programming principles: * Two days with general themes and main sessions focused on specific issues and not general overviews. * Some workshops could be held on themes defined by the MAG (main workshops), but organized by others who respond to a call for proposals. * Main workshops, which are linked to the main sessions and workshops on the four Athens themes, are not to be held in parallel to main sessions. * Other workshops may be held in parallel to the main sessions, depending on the quantity and quality of the proposals. * All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event. Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the following year. * Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.) * No official meetings starting after 1800 hours. * No official meetings during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 hours. * Further efforts will be made to enable remote participation * Efforts will be made to publish the proceedings of the meeting also in other formats. 3 December Curtain raiser, tutorials, workshops Opening ceremony/Opening session 4 December Theme: Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (alternate title: Expanding the Internet) 1100 - 1300: Low cost sustainable access 1400 - 1600: Multilingualization 1630 - 1830: Implications for development policy Host Country Reception 5 December Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet) 1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources 1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance 1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability 6 December 0900 - 1100: Taking stock and the way forward 1130 - 1300: Debate 1400 - 1600: Emerging issues 1630 - 1800: Closing Ceremony Notes from the discussion: The discussion on the two schedules and on possible topics took on the character of a brain storming session that would provide a starting point for discussion in the MAG and the wider IGF community. Some of the points that were brought out include: * The planning for 2008 should take into account the Chairman's Summary of the Rio meeting and look at the lessons learned and issues raised in the previous meetings. * Possible focused topics for "Low cost sustainable access" could include the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and India's success. * The scope of "Managing the Internet" topic could focus on international, national or local management of the Internet or the relationship among the three levels. * Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include: * Enabling growth and innovation * Capacity building * The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet * Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 * Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6 * Topics beyond IP addressing * Possible Debate topics: * IPR and innovation for development * Privacy and protection of children * Relationship between security and privacy * The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate * Other comments: * Freedom of Expression should have a dedicated session, though there was a question whether the IGF was the appropriate forum to discuss this issue. * Should the topic on innovations be discussed under * Emerging Issues * Universalization of the Internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 08:50:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:20:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong proposals... I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th March. We have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. At this stage I think we should just send the proposals in, and try to get co-sponsors a little later (would it not work that way, Adam and other MAG members?) We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks (pl point out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here) Roughly put they are - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - Implications for IG And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair. And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes can be rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the Status of It 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb consultations is given below) Parminder 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the Status of It Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' forward, which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some degree of confusion. 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:37 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 > > Deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops, best practice > forums and open forums is 30 April 2008. Not many weeks away. Details > in the MAG meeting report > > and most of the relevant information copied below. > > Issues the caucus recommended in contributions for the last > consultation have not all be included. It would not hurt to quickly > re-submit those comments (amended to take account of the MAG's > report). > > Again, if you organized a workshop in Rio and have not yet submitted > a report, please do so. (about 80 events in Rio and > not many > have submitted a report, which if anyone really cares about the IGF > producing outcomes, is a bit silly.) > > Adam > > > > Draft Programme Outline > > General programming principles: > * Two days with general themes and main sessions focused on specific > issues and not general overviews. > * Some workshops could be held on themes defined by the MAG (main > workshops), but organized by others who respond to a call for > proposals. > * Main workshops, which are linked to the main sessions and workshops > on the four Athens themes, are not to be held in parallel to main > sessions. > * Other workshops may be held in parallel to the main sessions, > depending on the quantity and quality of the proposals. > * All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be > asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event. > Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the > following year. > * Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report > for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.) > * No official meetings starting after 1800 hours. > * No official meetings during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 hours. > * Further efforts will be made to enable remote participation > * Efforts will be made to publish the proceedings of the meeting also > in other formats. > > 3 December > Curtain raiser, tutorials, workshops Opening ceremony/Opening session > > 4 December > Theme: > Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion > (alternate title: Expanding the Internet) > 1100 - 1300: Low cost sustainable access > 1400 - 1600: Multilingualization > 1630 - 1830: Implications for development policy > > Host Country Reception > > 5 December > Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet) > 1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources > 1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance > 1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability > > 6 December > 0900 - 1100: Taking stock and the way forward > 1130 - 1300: Debate > 1400 - 1600: Emerging issues > 1630 - 1800: Closing Ceremony > > Notes from the discussion: > > The discussion on the two schedules and on possible topics took on > the character of a brain storming session that would provide a > starting point for discussion in the MAG and the wider IGF community. > > Some of the points that were brought out include: > * The planning for 2008 should take into account the Chairman's > Summary of the Rio meeting and look at the lessons learned and issues > raised in the previous meetings. > * Possible focused topics for "Low cost sustainable access" could > include the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost > sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and > India's success. > * The scope of "Managing the Internet" topic could focus on > international, national or local management of the Internet or the > relationship among the three levels. > * Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include: > * Enabling growth and innovation > * Capacity building > * The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet > * Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 > * Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6 > * Topics beyond IP addressing > * Possible Debate topics: > * IPR and innovation for development > * Privacy and protection of children > * Relationship between security and privacy > * The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an > evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate > > * Other comments: > * Freedom of Expression should have a dedicated session, though there > was a question whether the IGF was the appropriate forum to discuss > this issue. > * Should the topic on innovations be discussed under > * Emerging Issues > * Universalization of the Internet. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Mar 25 09:04:53 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:04:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47E8F875.4070109@rits.org.br> Parm, regarding the second one, I would suggest a change in the theme title: Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -- implications for IG --c.a. Parminder wrote: > > As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong proposals... > > I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th March. We > have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. > > At this stage I think we should just send the proposals in, and try to get > co-sponsors a little later (would it not work that way, Adam and other MAG > members?) > > We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks (pl point > out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here) > > Roughly put they are > > - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG > > - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - > Implications for IG > > And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and > mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair. > > And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes can be > rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is > the Status of It > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb consultations is > given below) > > Parminder > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is > the Status of It > > Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced > cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such > an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' forward, > which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some > degree of confusion. > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social > activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but > also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will > examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary > interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other > partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for > Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing > a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream > development considerations into Internet governance decision making > processes. > > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that > cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad > concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which > progress in implementation can be most readily > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and > identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:37 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 >> >> Deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops, best practice >> forums and open forums is 30 April 2008. Not many weeks away. Details >> in the MAG meeting report >> >> and most of the relevant information copied below. >> >> Issues the caucus recommended in contributions for the last >> consultation have not all be included. It would not hurt to quickly >> re-submit those comments (amended to take account of the MAG's >> report). >> >> Again, if you organized a workshop in Rio and have not yet submitted >> a report, please do so. (about 80 events in Rio and >> not many >> have submitted a report, which if anyone really cares about the IGF >> producing outcomes, is a bit silly.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Draft Programme Outline >> >> General programming principles: >> * Two days with general themes and main sessions focused on specific >> issues and not general overviews. >> * Some workshops could be held on themes defined by the MAG (main >> workshops), but organized by others who respond to a call for >> proposals. >> * Main workshops, which are linked to the main sessions and workshops >> on the four Athens themes, are not to be held in parallel to main >> sessions. >> * Other workshops may be held in parallel to the main sessions, >> depending on the quantity and quality of the proposals. >> * All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be >> asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event. >> Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the >> following year. >> * Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report >> for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.) >> * No official meetings starting after 1800 hours. >> * No official meetings during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 hours. >> * Further efforts will be made to enable remote participation >> * Efforts will be made to publish the proceedings of the meeting also >> in other formats. >> >> 3 December >> Curtain raiser, tutorials, workshops Opening ceremony/Opening session >> >> 4 December >> Theme: >> Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion >> (alternate title: Expanding the Internet) >> 1100 - 1300: Low cost sustainable access >> 1400 - 1600: Multilingualization >> 1630 - 1830: Implications for development policy >> >> Host Country Reception >> >> 5 December >> Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet) >> 1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources >> 1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance >> 1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability >> >> 6 December >> 0900 - 1100: Taking stock and the way forward >> 1130 - 1300: Debate >> 1400 - 1600: Emerging issues >> 1630 - 1800: Closing Ceremony >> >> Notes from the discussion: >> >> The discussion on the two schedules and on possible topics took on >> the character of a brain storming session that would provide a >> starting point for discussion in the MAG and the wider IGF community. >> >> Some of the points that were brought out include: >> * The planning for 2008 should take into account the Chairman's >> Summary of the Rio meeting and look at the lessons learned and issues >> raised in the previous meetings. >> * Possible focused topics for "Low cost sustainable access" could >> include the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost >> sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and >> India's success. >> * The scope of "Managing the Internet" topic could focus on >> international, national or local management of the Internet or the >> relationship among the three levels. >> * Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include: >> * Enabling growth and innovation >> * Capacity building >> * The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet >> * Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 >> * Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6 >> * Topics beyond IP addressing >> * Possible Debate topics: >> * IPR and innovation for development >> * Privacy and protection of children >> * Relationship between security and privacy >> * The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an >> evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate >> >> * Other comments: >> * Freedom of Expression should have a dedicated session, though there >> was a question whether the IGF was the appropriate forum to discuss >> this issue. >> * Should the topic on innovations be discussed under >> * Emerging Issues >> * Universalization of the Internet. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 09:11:07 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:41:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080325131121.F38ED67897@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Roughly put they are > > - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG > > - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - > Implications for IG These were very roughly put, from what I remember of the discussions and I request those who originally proposed/ discussed them to proposed titles and also flesh out the proposals. I already have an offlist suggestion that the title of the second proposal above be changed to "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -- implications for IG" Thanks Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 > > > > As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong proposals... > > I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th March. We > have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. > > At this stage I think we should just send the proposals in, and try to get > co-sponsors a little later (would it not work that way, Adam and other MAG > members?) > > We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks (pl point > out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here) > > Roughly put they are > > - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG > > - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - > Implications for IG > > And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and > mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair. > > And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes can be > rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is > the Status of It > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb consultations is > given below) > > Parminder > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is > the Status of It > > Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced > cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that > such > an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' forward, > which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some > degree of confusion. > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet > becomes > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social > activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but > also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will > examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary > interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the > IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms > and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other > partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda > for > Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for > establishing > a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream > development considerations into Internet governance decision making > processes. > > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on > the > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that > cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad > concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which > progress in implementation can be most readily > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and > identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:37 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 > > > > Deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops, best practice > > forums and open forums is 30 April 2008. Not many weeks away. Details > > in the MAG meeting report > > > > > and most of the relevant information copied below. > > > > Issues the caucus recommended in contributions for the last > > consultation have not all be included. It would not hurt to quickly > > re-submit those comments (amended to take account of the MAG's > > report). > > > > Again, if you organized a workshop in Rio and have not yet submitted > > a report, please do so. (about 80 events in Rio and > > not many > > have submitted a report, which if anyone really cares about the IGF > > producing outcomes, is a bit silly.) > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > Draft Programme Outline > > > > General programming principles: > > * Two days with general themes and main sessions focused on specific > > issues and not general overviews. > > * Some workshops could be held on themes defined by the MAG (main > > workshops), but organized by others who respond to a call for > > proposals. > > * Main workshops, which are linked to the main sessions and workshops > > on the four Athens themes, are not to be held in parallel to main > > sessions. > > * Other workshops may be held in parallel to the main sessions, > > depending on the quantity and quality of the proposals. > > * All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be > > asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event. > > Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the > > following year. > > * Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report > > for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.) > > * No official meetings starting after 1800 hours. > > * No official meetings during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 hours. > > * Further efforts will be made to enable remote participation > > * Efforts will be made to publish the proceedings of the meeting also > > in other formats. > > > > 3 December > > Curtain raiser, tutorials, workshops Opening ceremony/Opening session > > > > 4 December > > Theme: > > Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion > > (alternate title: Expanding the Internet) > > 1100 - 1300: Low cost sustainable access > > 1400 - 1600: Multilingualization > > 1630 - 1830: Implications for development policy > > > > Host Country Reception > > > > 5 December > > Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet) > > 1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources > > 1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance > > 1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability > > > > 6 December > > 0900 - 1100: Taking stock and the way forward > > 1130 - 1300: Debate > > 1400 - 1600: Emerging issues > > 1630 - 1800: Closing Ceremony > > > > Notes from the discussion: > > > > The discussion on the two schedules and on possible topics took on > > the character of a brain storming session that would provide a > > starting point for discussion in the MAG and the wider IGF community. > > > > Some of the points that were brought out include: > > * The planning for 2008 should take into account the Chairman's > > Summary of the Rio meeting and look at the lessons learned and issues > > raised in the previous meetings. > > * Possible focused topics for "Low cost sustainable access" could > > include the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost > > sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and > > India's success. > > * The scope of "Managing the Internet" topic could focus on > > international, national or local management of the Internet or the > > relationship among the three levels. > > * Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include: > > * Enabling growth and innovation > > * Capacity building > > * The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet > > * Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 > > * Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6 > > * Topics beyond IP addressing > > * Possible Debate topics: > > * IPR and innovation for development > > * Privacy and protection of children > > * Relationship between security and privacy > > * The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an > > evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate > > > > * Other comments: > > * Freedom of Expression should have a dedicated session, though there > > was a question whether the IGF was the appropriate forum to discuss > > this issue. > > * Should the topic on innovations be discussed under > > * Emerging Issues > > * Universalization of the Internet. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 09:21:30 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:51:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <1985.125.164.189.50.1206167414.squirrel@mail.rad.net.id> Message-ID: <20080325132250.73B18E0573@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Mar 25 09:26:17 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:26:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47E8FD79.1030309@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > > As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong proposals... > > I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th March. We > have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. > > At this stage I think we should just send the proposals in, and try to get > co-sponsors a little later (would it not work that way, Adam and other MAG > members?) > Hi, I would suggest to propose co-sponsors and and speakers and indicate that they have to be confirmed. It makes a workshop proposal much stronger if the multi-stakeholder dimension is part of the original proposal. This might also help the secretariat to identify candidates for potential mergers. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tatiw at riseup.net Tue Mar 25 09:46:12 2008 From: tatiw at riseup.net (tatiw at riseup.net) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080325132250.73B18E0573@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080325132250.73B18E0573@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1307.127.0.0.1.1206452772.squirrel@petrel.riseup.net> hey parminder if you still need more volunteers please count on me tatiana wells (rio grande do norte/ brazil) xt > Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially > from > different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. > > > > However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both > private sector and NGO. > > > > To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil > society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus > appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil > society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and > governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the > other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the > principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a > vis > IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. > > > > So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from > Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether > you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public > interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in > aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. > > > > I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any > clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send > to > my id alone. > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > Parminder > > > > > > _____ > > From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick > Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG > > > > I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : > > Rudi Rusdiah > Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha > Warnet) > ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: > apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) > Jakarta , Indonesia > GSM: +6281 677 4203 > Fax: +6221 7507545 > > > >> hi >> >> as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom >> >> karen >> >> At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >>> >>>Rudi Vansnick >>>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>>EURALO board member >>>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>>Belgium >>>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>>http://www.isoc.be >>> >>> >>>Parminder schreef: >>>> >>>>Hi All >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>>achieve its purpose. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Mar 25 09:47:36 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:47:36 +0100 Subject: {Spam?} RE: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I suspect it would not be aesthetically wise for the IGC to submit too many proposals, at least not as the lead. Co-sponsoring alongside other co-sponsors is probably another story. MAGers can correct me but I'd think it odd to ask for blessing of multiple proposals from one entity when space is limited etc. I agree the IGC should do the Role and Mandate of the IGF again, last year's session having been constructive and well received. And we wanted to make that sort of an annual feed in to the Taking Stock and Way Forward main session, even if the MAG decided at the 12th hour in Rio that no panelists from the former could be on the latter and hence really bring in the points made. (BTW next week I can write the Rio ws report Adam's been reminding us about. Just a couple paragraphs, but it being a IGC event, what's the procedure, should it be cleared through the list before submission to the secretariat?) Second, I also think Willy's suggestion of something on jurisdictional problems and competing sovereignty claims would be really useful, nobody's been raising these issues much so there'd be a distinctive value-added. Maybe we could do one more, like the public service or however you want to frame it session....? For other possible themes, one suspects these can be taken up by some of us separately, with the IGC signing on as co-sponsor as desired. Presumably, ICT4C, IGP, APC, et al will want to pick up some of these themes. I will propose a ws building on my prior DA events and related, probably with some of the same partners, maybe others, have to sort out with the Swiss and local government delegates. Bottom line I'm sure that all the substantive topics we want can garner credible proposals, it's just a question of which would be best branded as IGC lead. Cheers, Bill On 3/25/08 1:50 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong proposals... > > I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th March. We > have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. > > At this stage I think we should just send the proposals in, and try to get > co-sponsors a little later (would it not work that way, Adam and other MAG > members?) > > We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks (pl point > out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here) > > Roughly put they are > > - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG > > - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - > Implications for IG > > And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and > mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair. > > And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes can be > rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is > the Status of It > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb consultations is > given below) > > Parminder > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is > the Status of It > > Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced > cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all stakeholders > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that such > an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' forward, > which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least some > degree of confusion. > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social > activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, but > also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session will > examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary > interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and other > partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for > Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing > a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream > development considerations into Internet governance decision making > processes. > > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The Internet > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in this > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that > cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad > concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which > progress in implementation can be most readily > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and > identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 09:48:49 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:18:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080325134904.2D9F5E04A5@smtp3.electricembers.net> On volunteers we are almost there. If we get 2 more, we are done. Thanks. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 25 10:10:10 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:40:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080325141104.4357E67960@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bill > > I suspect it would not be aesthetically wise for the IGC to submit too > many > proposals, at least not as the lead. Co-sponsoring alongside other > co-sponsors is probably another story. I myself want a tiered strategy. 2-3 workshops proposed by the IGC - main-and-proper, and a few others taken up by some IGC members which IGC agrees to co-sponsor. > I agree the IGC should do the Role and Mandate of the IGF again, last > year's > session having been constructive and well received. Yes. > (BTW next week I can write the Rio ws report Adam's been reminding us > about. > Just a couple paragraphs, but it being a IGC event, what's the procedure, > should it be cleared through the list before submission to the > secretariat?) Thanks. Pl write and we will put up on the list for 2 days or so, and then send it to the secretariat. Since it is a factual report there shouldn't be much comment on it, which could affect the report.. .. > Second, I also think Willy's suggestion of something on jurisdictional > problems and competing sovereignty claims would be really useful, nobody's > been raising these issues much so there'd be a distinctive value-added. > > Maybe we could do one more, like the public service or however you want to > frame it session....? Yes, I support these two. > For other possible themes, one suspects these can be taken up by some of > us > separately, with the IGC signing on as co-sponsor as desired. That s the idea. Presumably, > ICT4C, IGP, APC, et al will want to pick up some of these themes. Positive. Just correcting my org's name as ITfC or ITFC. Thanks. (we don't use 4, actually we don't even use ICT4D, we use ICTD) Bottom line I'm sure that all the substantive > topics we want can garner credible proposals, it's just a question of > which > would be best branded as IGC lead. Yes. Needs some of the members to take lead on some issues. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:18 PM > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance > Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 > > Hi Parminder, > > I suspect it would not be aesthetically wise for the IGC to submit too > many > proposals, at least not as the lead. Co-sponsoring alongside other > co-sponsors is probably another story. MAGers can correct me but I'd > think > it odd to ask for blessing of multiple proposals from one entity when > space > is limited etc. > > I agree the IGC should do the Role and Mandate of the IGF again, last > year's > session having been constructive and well received. And we wanted to make > that sort of an annual feed in to the Taking Stock and Way Forward main > session, even if the MAG decided at the 12th hour in Rio that no panelists > from the former could be on the latter and hence really bring in the > points > made. > > (BTW next week I can write the Rio ws report Adam's been reminding us > about. > Just a couple paragraphs, but it being a IGC event, what's the procedure, > should it be cleared through the list before submission to the > secretariat?) > > Second, I also think Willy's suggestion of something on jurisdictional > problems and competing sovereignty claims would be really useful, nobody's > been raising these issues much so there'd be a distinctive value-added. > > Maybe we could do one more, like the public service or however you want to > frame it session....? > > For other possible themes, one suspects these can be taken up by some of > us > separately, with the IGC signing on as co-sponsor as desired. Presumably, > ICT4C, IGP, APC, et al will want to pick up some of these themes. I will > propose a ws building on my prior DA events and related, probably with > some > of the same partners, maybe others, have to sort out with the Swiss and > local government delegates. Bottom line I'm sure that all the substantive > topics we want can garner credible proposals, it's just a question of > which > would be best branded as IGC lead. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > On 3/25/08 1:50 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > > > > > > As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong > proposals... > > > > I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th March. > We > > have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. > > > > At this stage I think we should just send the proposals in, and try to > get > > co-sponsors a little later (would it not work that way, Adam and other > MAG > > members?) > > > > We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks (pl > point > > out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here) > > > > Roughly put they are > > > > - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG > > > > - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - > > Implications for IG > > > > And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and > > mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair. > > > > And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes can > be > > rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What > Is > > the Status of It > > > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > > > (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb consultations > is > > given below) > > > > Parminder > > > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What > Is > > the Status of It > > > > Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global > > Internet policy making. There are different views about what exactly is > > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced > > cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all > stakeholders > > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible that > such > > an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' forward, > > which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at least > some > > degree of confusion. > > > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the > > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet > becomes > > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social > > activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical layer, > but > > also increasingly in the content and application layers. This session > will > > examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary > > interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. > > > > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the > IGF. > > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and > Rio > > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted > significant, > > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms > and > > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > > actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and > other > > partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda > for > > Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for > establishing > > a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream > > development considerations into Internet governance decision making > > processes. > > > > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on > the > > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development > Agenda > > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this > > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > > support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a > > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to > the > > IGF on a development agenda. > > > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be > > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > > organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the WSIS > > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and > assess, > > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > > Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any follow-up > > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The > Internet > > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity in > this > > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that > > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting > > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that > > cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad > > concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which > > progress in implementation can be most readily > > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could > > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms, and > > identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 10:12:27 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:42:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <1307.127.0.0.1.1206452772.squirrel@petrel.riseup.net> Message-ID: <20080325141242.435E8E0499@smtp3.electricembers.net> Welcome to the group, Tatiana. And we very much appreciate your offer. Only there is a kind of a rule that one has to be in the group for at least 2 months to volunteer. So, perhaps next time... Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: tatiw at riseup.net [mailto:tatiw at riseup.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG > > hey parminder > > if you still need more volunteers please count on me > > tatiana wells (rio grande do norte/ brazil) > > xt > > > Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially > > from > > different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. > > > > > > > > However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both > > private sector and NGO. > > > > > > > > To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a > civil > > society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus > > appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil > > society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and > > governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on > the > > other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of > the > > principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a > > vis > > IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. > > > > > > > > So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from > > Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you > whether > > you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public > > interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in > > aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. > > > > > > > > I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any > > clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email > send > > to > > my id alone. > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] > > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick > > Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG > > > > > > > > I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : > > > > Rudi Rusdiah > > Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi > Pengusaha > > Warnet) > > ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: > > apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) > > Jakarta , Indonesia > > GSM: +6281 677 4203 > > Fax: +6221 7507545 > > > > > > > >> hi > >> > >> as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > >> > >> karen > >> > >> At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > >>>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. > >>> > >>>Rudi Vansnick > >>>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw > >>>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain > >>>EURALO board member > >>>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen > >>>Belgium > >>>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > >>>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ > >>>http://www.isoc.be > >>> > >>> > >>>Parminder schreef: > >>>> > >>>>Hi All > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer > >>>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and > >>>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation > >>>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from > >>>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group > >>>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on > >>>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to > >>>>achieve its purpose. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Parminder > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Mar 25 10:15:22 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:15:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: busy, one comment: >Hi Parminder, > >I suspect it would not be aesthetically wise for the IGC to submit too many >proposals, at least not as the lead. Co-sponsoring alongside other >co-sponsors is probably another story. MAGers can correct me but I'd think >it odd to ask for blessing of multiple proposals from one entity when space >is limited etc. > >I agree the IGC should do the Role and Mandate of the IGF again, last year's >session having been constructive and well received. And we wanted to make >that sort of an annual feed in to the Taking Stock and Way Forward main >session, even if the MAG decided at the 12th hour in Rio that no panelists >from the former could be on the latter and hence really bring in the points >made.  > >(BTW next week I can write the Rio ws report Adam's been reminding us about. >Just a couple paragraphs, but it being a IGC event, what's the procedure, >should it be cleared through the list before submission to the secretariat?) > >Second, I also think Willy's suggestion of something on jurisdictional >problems and competing sovereignty claims would be really useful, nobody's >been raising these issues much so there'd be a distinctive value-added. Willie's comment I would like to see if we can suggest this as the theme for a session: At 9:07 PM +0900 3/25/08, Adam Peake wrote: > >5 December >Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet) >1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources >1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance >1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability > Probably "Arrangements for Internet governance". Thoughts? Adam >Maybe we could do one more, like the public service or however you want to >frame it session....? > >For other possible themes, one suspects these can be taken up by some of us >separately, with the IGC signing on as co-sponsor as desired. Presumably, >ICT4C, IGP, APC, et al will want to pick up some of these themes. I will >propose a ws building on my prior DA events and related, probably with some >of the same partners, maybe others, have to sort out with the Swiss and >local government delegates. Bottom line I'm sure that all the substantive >topics we want can garner credible proposals, it's just a question of which >would be best branded as IGC lead. > >Cheers, > >Bill > >On 3/25/08 1:50 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Mar 25 10:28:56 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:28:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080325134904.2D9F5E04A5@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080325134904.2D9F5E04A5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080325142856.GA22109@musti.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:18:49PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > On volunteers we are almost there. If we get 2 more, we are done. I'll volunteer to the nomcom (although I won't improve regional or ethnic balance any, I'm afraid). -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tatiw at riseup.net Tue Mar 25 11:18:49 2008 From: tatiw at riseup.net (tatiw at riseup.net) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080325141242.435E8E0499@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080325141242.435E8E0499@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <1181.127.0.0.1.1206458329.squirrel@petrel.riseup.net> ok, will keep a close look on the processes so that I can better contribute on the future! best regards// xt > > Welcome to the group, Tatiana. And we very much appreciate your offer. > Only > there is a kind of a rule that one has to be in the group for at least 2 > months to volunteer. So, perhaps next time... > > Thanks. Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tatiw at riseup.net [mailto:tatiw at riseup.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:16 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG >> >> hey parminder >> >> if you still need more volunteers please count on me >> >> tatiana wells (rio grande do norte/ brazil) >> >> xt >> >> > Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and >> especially >> > from >> > different parts of the world, which may currently be >> under-represented. >> > >> > >> > >> > However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions >> both >> > private sector and NGO. >> > >> > >> > >> > To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a >> civil >> > society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus >> > appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, >> civil >> > society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and >> > governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on >> the >> > other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of >> the >> > principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis >> a >> > vis >> > IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. >> > >> > >> > >> > So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from >> > Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you >> whether >> > you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing >> public >> > interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or >> in >> > aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. >> > >> > >> > >> > I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give >> any >> > clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email >> send >> > to >> > my id alone. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks and Regards >> > >> > >> > >> > Parminder >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _____ >> > >> > From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] >> > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks >> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick >> > Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG >> > >> > >> > >> > I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : >> > >> > Rudi Rusdiah >> > Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi >> Pengusaha >> > Warnet) >> > ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: >> > apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) >> > Jakarta , Indonesia >> > GSM: +6281 677 4203 >> > Fax: +6221 7507545 >> > >> > >> > >> >> hi >> >> >> >> as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom >> >> >> >> karen >> >> >> >> At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >> >>>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>> >> >>>Rudi Vansnick >> >>>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >> >>>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >> >>>EURALO board member >> >>>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >> >>>Belgium >> >>>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >> >>>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >> >>>http://www.isoc.be >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Parminder schreef: >> >>>> >> >>>>Hi All >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >> >>>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >> >>>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >> >>>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >> >>>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >> >>>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >> >>>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >> >>>>achieve its purpose. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Mar 25 11:42:08 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:42:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder and all, Le 25 mars 08 à 13:50, Parminder a écrit : > > As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong > proposals... > > I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th > March. We > have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. Note it's April 30, not March 30. But still, not that much time to achieve this:) > We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks > (pl point > out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here) I share Bill's and your suggestion to concentrate on 2-3 well defined IGC workshops, with co-sponsorship possibilities for other workshops. I support these three themes, for IGC workshops: 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF" (follow-up of last year workshop) 2- "Critical Internet resources" or whatever this may me called. Adam's proposing "Arrangements for Internet governance", but I'm afraid this title may be misleading. I think the idea is the same, however) 3- "Technical and contractual means of law enforcement and control: revising the competence of jurisdictions?" This may be rewritten, but I hope you get the idea. The point is that if we organize a workshop on "cross-country jurisdiction issues", I'm afraid we'll fall into years-old very specific and technical legal debates, while not addressing the main point w.r.t. Internet governance, which is how technical and contractual means are used to circumvent national laws (sovereignty issue but also breaches of the rule of law), to circumvent or overcome the competence of jurisdiction issue, as well as to insidiously establish non legal standards. Thus, it's a wider topic. Re: technical means, we touch on the issue of IPR as well as on content regulation through filtering Re: contractual means, we can deal with notice and take down procedures, etc. (most recent example of such case: Network Solutions - as host provider, not as registrar - suspending the fitnathemovie.com website, see: http://newsroom.networksolutions.com/ 2008/network-solutions-statement-on-fitnathemoviecom/) It seems to me that this would allow, more generally, to discuss all the issues synthetized in Willie's message (http://lists.cpsr.org/ lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00147.html). Best, Meryem > > Roughly put they are > > - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG > > - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - > Implications for IG > > And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and > mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair. > > And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes > can be > rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and > What Is > the Status of It > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb > consultations is > given below) > > Parminder > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and > What Is > the Status of It > > Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global > Internet policy making. There are different views about what > exactly is > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced > cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all > stakeholders > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible > that such > an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' > forward, > which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at > least some > degree of confusion. > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle > for the > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as > Internet becomes > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and > social > activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical > layer, but > also increasingly in the content and application layers. This > session will > examine the implication of this principle, and its possible > evolutionary > interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for > the IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens > and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted > significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance > mechanisms and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil > society > actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and > other > partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development > Agenda for > Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for > establishing > a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream > development considerations into Internet governance decision making > processes. > > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further > work on the > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development > Agenda > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that > this > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations > to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the > WSIS > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and > assess, > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > follow-up > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The > Internet > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity > in this > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross- > cutting > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that > cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in > Hyderabad > concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which > progress in implementation can be most readily > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session > could > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance > mechanisms, and > identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:37 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 >> >> Deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops, best practice >> forums and open forums is 30 April 2008. Not many weeks away. Details >> in the MAG meeting report >> > 28.02.2008.v2.pdf> >> and most of the relevant information copied below. >> >> Issues the caucus recommended in contributions for the last >> consultation have not all be included. It would not hurt to quickly >> re-submit those comments (amended to take account of the MAG's >> report). >> >> Again, if you organized a workshop in Rio and have not yet submitted >> a report, please do so. (about 80 events in Rio and >> not many >> have submitted a report, which if anyone really cares about the IGF >> producing outcomes, is a bit silly.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Draft Programme Outline >> >> General programming principles: >> * Two days with general themes and main sessions focused on specific >> issues and not general overviews. >> * Some workshops could be held on themes defined by the MAG (main >> workshops), but organized by others who respond to a call for >> proposals. >> * Main workshops, which are linked to the main sessions and workshops >> on the four Athens themes, are not to be held in parallel to main >> sessions. >> * Other workshops may be held in parallel to the main sessions, >> depending on the quantity and quality of the proposals. >> * All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be >> asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event. >> Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the >> following year. >> * Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report >> for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.) >> * No official meetings starting after 1800 hours. >> * No official meetings during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 >> hours. >> * Further efforts will be made to enable remote participation >> * Efforts will be made to publish the proceedings of the meeting also >> in other formats. >> >> 3 December >> Curtain raiser, tutorials, workshops Opening ceremony/Opening session >> >> 4 December >> Theme: >> Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion >> (alternate title: Expanding the Internet) >> 1100 - 1300: Low cost sustainable access >> 1400 - 1600: Multilingualization >> 1630 - 1830: Implications for development policy >> >> Host Country Reception >> >> 5 December >> Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet) >> 1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources >> 1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance >> 1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability >> >> 6 December >> 0900 - 1100: Taking stock and the way forward >> 1130 - 1300: Debate >> 1400 - 1600: Emerging issues >> 1630 - 1800: Closing Ceremony >> >> Notes from the discussion: >> >> The discussion on the two schedules and on possible topics took on >> the character of a brain storming session that would provide a >> starting point for discussion in the MAG and the wider IGF community. >> >> Some of the points that were brought out include: >> * The planning for 2008 should take into account the Chairman's >> Summary of the Rio meeting and look at the lessons learned and issues >> raised in the previous meetings. >> * Possible focused topics for "Low cost sustainable access" could >> include the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost >> sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and >> India's success. >> * The scope of "Managing the Internet" topic could focus on >> international, national or local management of the Internet or the >> relationship among the three levels. >> * Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include: >> * Enabling growth and innovation >> * Capacity building >> * The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet >> * Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 >> * Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6 >> * Topics beyond IP addressing >> * Possible Debate topics: >> * IPR and innovation for development >> * Privacy and protection of children >> * Relationship between security and privacy >> * The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an >> evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate >> >> * Other comments: >> * Freedom of Expression should have a dedicated session, though there >> was a question whether the IGF was the appropriate forum to discuss >> this issue. >> * Should the topic on innovations be discussed under >> * Emerging Issues >> * Universalization of the Internet. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 12:09:59 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:09:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: References: <20080325125025.23CE2678E1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820014@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Just a note that IGP will be developing some workshop proposals on its own, which is something we feel we have significant competence to do and a good track record. I am sure several other CS and technical organizations will do likewise (APC, ISOC etc.) At some juncture a week or so prior to the deadline, however, we will use this list to solicit comment. There are several reasons to do this. One is to avoid blindsiding each other with direct duplication and overlap. This happened a lot last year; hopefully we can do a better job of avoiding it. Another reason is to gain broader perspectives on the topics and suggestions for panelists, especially people from underrepresented groups that we may not know who could make strong substantive contributions. Yet another is the issue of cross-"endorsement" of ideas/Workshops proposed by the caucus itself or member organizations. The methods used to do this can be determined later, and abandoned if it proves to be too much trouble for either side, we simply note that we will be in collaborative mode and will seek an appropriate and mutually beneficial level of cooperation. As you all should know by now, IGP likes to concentrate on issues of technical governance that raise (often hidden or poorly understood) issues of public policy. Thus, we would be unlikely to propose something related to role and mandate of IGF (while agreeing that it is a good area for IGC), and very likely to propose something somewhat related to what Meryem is calling "technical and contractual means" that overcome jurisdictional problems and may "circumvent national laws" --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 bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Mar 25 12:27:07 2008 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:27:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0795DD38-AB88-468C-8173-F663028301DF@internet.law.pro> I'd really like to help develop this workshop. Let's put together a list of people interested in this. -- Bret >> Second, I also think Willy's suggestion of something on >> jurisdictional >> problems and competing sovereignty claims would be really useful, >> nobody's >> been raising these issues much so there'd be a distinctive value- >> added. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 25 14:40:31 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:40:31 +1100 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: <0795DD38-AB88-468C-8173-F663028301DF@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <067801c88ea7$bd845c70$8b00a8c0@IAN> Count me in on this one too. 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: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] > Sent: 26 March 2008 03:27 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Cc: William Drake; wcurrie at apc.org > Subject: Re: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 > > I'd really like to help develop this workshop. Let's put together a > list of people interested in this. -- Bret > > >> Second, I also think Willy's suggestion of something on > >> jurisdictional > >> problems and competing sovereignty claims would be really useful, > >> nobody's > >> been raising these issues much so there'd be a distinctive value- > >> added. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1341 - Release Date: > 24/03/2008 15:03 > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date: 25/03/2008 10:26 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 21:53:14 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:53:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080325132250.73B18E0573@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <01bd01c88ee4$5ee36e30$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Parminder, Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>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 karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Mar 26 10:32:03 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:32:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] help: internet rights violations - open architecture Message-ID: <20080326143340.0F5A42BD77E@mail.gn.apc.org> hi everyone APC is doing a radio scripted version (or audio version) of the APC internet rights charter, working with ALER from latin america which incldues examples of either violations or excercises of the rights described in the charter (which is now available in 19 languages, 12 of which are available online): http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/policy/all/apc-internet-rights-charter We have examples of all but one: === 6.4 The right to open architecture The internet as a 'network of networks' is made up of many interconnected networks, based on the key underlying technical idea of open architecture networking, in which any type of network anywhere can be included and made publicly available. Open architecture must be protected. === can anyone help with real life stories of violations of exercises of this right? thanks a lot 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 26 12:29:16 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:29:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <01bd01c88ee4$5ee36e30$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <20080325132250.73B18E0573@smtp3.electricembers.net> <01bd01c88ee4$5ee36e30$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018200D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I love this jargon. "Revenue based community micro-enterprises." Some of us call that "small business." I do _not_ wish to enter into any debate about the group's CS credentials or eligibility, it's fine with me. But you gotta love this. ________________________________ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Parminder, Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder ________________________________ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 12:54:19 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:54:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018200D8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c88f62$0a30dac0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Okay smarty-pants you summarize the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_caf%C3%A9#Indonesia Indonesia According to APWKomitel (Associations of Community Internet Center) there are 5,000 Internet Cafe in urban Indonesian cities in 2006 providing computer/printer/scanner rental, training, PC game and Internet Access/Rental to the people that do not have PC or internet access at home. The website also contains a directory listing some of these warnet/telecenter/gamecenter in Indonesia. In urban area, the generic name is Warnet (or Warung Internet) and in rural area the generic name is Telecenter. Warnets/ Netcafes (ie: Java NetCafe established in 1998) are usually owned by private SME as bottom up initiative, while Telecenter in rural villages are usually initiated by Government and Donor as top down financing. Information on Netcafe/Warnet in Indonesia can also be found in a book titled: Connected for Development:Indonesian Case study . Currently, there are no special license for operating Internet Cafe or Warnet in Indonesia, except for ordinary business license also applied to cafe or small shop. Because of hype and many internet cafe start their business without proper planning, some of them closed down lack of business plan.Although the number is still growing, Association such as APWKomitel urges new internet cafe owner to do a feasibility study for startup netcafe and provide business model called Multipurpose Community Internet Center or "MCI Center" to make the business more sustainable and competitive. MG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: March 26, 2008 9:29 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I love this jargon. "Revenue based community micro-enterprises." Some of us call that "small business." I do _not_ wish to enter into any debate about the group's CS credentials or eligibility, it's fine with me. But you gotta love this. _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Parminder, Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 16:18:24 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:18:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [gaid-discuss] G3ict - ITU Joint Global Forum on ICT AccessibilityStandards Message-ID: <001f01c88f7e$e9bedc70$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> This will be of considerable interest for those working on ICT Access issues and Persons with Disabilities. MG -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org] On Behalf Of Axel Leblois Sent: March 25, 2008 1:00 PM To: 'GAID Discussion' Cc: 'Francesca Cesa Bianchi' Subject: [gaid-discuss] G3ict - ITU Joint Global Forum on ICT AccessibilityStandards Dear GAID Friends and Colleagues, As announced last summer, on Monday, April 21st, G3ict, a Flagship Advocacy Initiative of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development will co-organize with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) a joint 2008 Global Forum to review areas of challenges and opportunities for international ICT accessibility standards in light of the dispositions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Since March 30, 2007, 126 United Nations member states have signed the Convention: this unexpected fast rate of adoption makes it urgent to promote ICT accessibility standards that will support a better and faster implementation around the world of the many dispositions of the Convention regarding ICTs. For the first time since the Convention was adopted, an international group of experts from industry, standards development organizations, NGOs representing persons with disabilities, international development institutions, governments and academia will examine together its many implications for ICT accessibility standards. Proceedings will be edited to serve as a reference for future accessibility standards developments. We hope that you can join us for this important meeting which will take place at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland on Monday, April 21st, 2008. I have attached an invitation and agenda (in both accessible text only version and PDF file). Please feel free to forward this invitation to those of your colleagues who may have an interest in attending . Participation to the meeting is free, but advanced registration is required at: http://itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/accessibility/200804/registration.html Should you have any question regarding your participation, please contact Ms. Francesca Cesa Bianchi, Director of External Relations for G3ict fcesabianchi at g3ict.com or +1 404 446 4160. Looking forward to seeing you in Geneva, With best regards, Axel Leblois Executive Director G3ict www.g3ict.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Accessible Text Only Invitation G3ict - ITU Global Forum.txt Type: application/octet-stream Size: 8968 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Joint ITU - G3ict Forum Invitation & Agenda_04.21.08.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 183796 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00529.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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Mar 27 03:50:50 2008 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:50:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] help: internet rights violations - open architecture In-Reply-To: <20080326143340.0F5A42BD77E@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20080326143340.0F5A42BD77E@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <47EB51DA.2040200@cavebear.com> karen banks wrote: > We have examples of all but one: > > === > 6.4 The right to open architecture > > The internet as a ‘network of networks’ is made up of many > interconnected networks, based on the key underlying technical idea of > open architecture networking, in which any type of network anywhere can > be included and made publicly available. Open architecture must be > protected. I do not see this as necessarily a good thing - your wording may need some refinement. Most innovations leave somebody behind. For example, IPv6 will leave behind a lot of people who refuse to upgrade from their IPv4-only world. And unicode rather than ASCII leaves behind those who don't upgrade their applications. I'm sure that this isn't what you mean by "open architecture" but some folks might think that way. Also, "open" should not necessarily be equated with "free" (as in no money). Some things do cause costs - very low jitter end-to-end paths do tend to require somebody to spend time to do traffic engineering and often such paths require that there be spare, often used, capacity. Those things are not free of cost. My sense is that what you are suggesting is a network in which communicating peers at the edges need not ask permission of anyone (besides one another) to do something that is carried in standard IPv4 or IPv6 packets. Is this violated in practice - yes. Sometimes in subtle ways, such as ADSL modems that appear to be Ethernet but which can't handle MTU 1500 and thus impose a fragmentation burden. Sometimes in major ways - as in the way that Comcast usurps the identities of the communicating peers and generates TCP resets using those forged identities. An in-between practice is firewalls - it is not always clear who is the "communicating peer" who is consenting to the firewalling, particularly in corporate or parental situations. My own summary is something I call "The First Law of the Internet": + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. --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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 27 06:01:03 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:31:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <01bd01c88ee4$5ee36e30$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080327100135.65FE96781F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Yes, Michael, I did read about the organization and also saw that it is registered as civil society organization in the WSIS process. While Rudi could simple have said, 'I too volunteer', and I would have accepted it, the fact that he said he is volunteering form the "Indonesian private sector' does leave me with a problem. IGC membership rules are at present very loosely interpreted, (and we in any case need to do something about it, as I pointed out in an email a few days back) but the one rule which does seem to apply - as mentioned in the charter in the voting section, and on the ballot for voting the lat time we voted - is of self declaration as belonging to civil society. Now, Rudi's self declaration violates precisely that rule - which is the one that seems at present to be the only applied with any seriousness. In capacity of co-coordinator, who is the custodian of the charter and IGC processes, it is my duty to seek clarification on this matter. An example to explain this position will be someone coming on to volunteer, declaring that he volunteers from xyz government. I would refuse his offer, and seek clarification. I was only doing what I understand is an organizational duty. Parminder PS: Since the volunteers list has to be published today, I will keep Rudi provisionally on the volunteers list, which will be subject to random selection process. I will again seek self declaration if he does get to be on the first 5 list. _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Parminder, Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From suresh at hserus.net Thu Mar 27 06:25:32 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:55:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080327100135.65FE96781F@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <01bd01c88ee4$5ee36e30$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080327100135.65FE96781F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0a8d01c88ff4$e4d7f6d0$ae87e470$@net> Are you sure his statement wasn't simply because of a communication gap / language issue? suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:01 PM To: 'Michael Gurstein'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Yes, Michael, I did read about the organization and also saw that it is registered as civil society organization in the WSIS process. While Rudi could simple have said, 'I too volunteer', and I would have accepted it, the fact that he said he is volunteering form the "Indonesian private sector' does leave me with a problem. IGC membership rules are at present very loosely interpreted, (and we in any case need to do something about it, as I pointed out in an email a few days back) but the one rule which does seem to apply - as mentioned in the charter in the voting section, and on the ballot for voting the lat time we voted - is of self declaration as belonging to civil society. Now, Rudi's self declaration violates precisely that rule - which is the one that seems at present to be the only applied with any seriousness. In capacity of co-coordinator, who is the custodian of the charter and IGC processes, it is my duty to seek clarification on this matter. An example to explain this position will be someone coming on to volunteer, declaring that he volunteers from xyz government. I would refuse his offer, and seek clarification. I was only doing what I understand is an organizational duty. Parminder PS: Since the volunteers list has to be published today, I will keep Rudi provisionally on the volunteers list, which will be subject to random selection process. I will again seek self declaration if he does get to be on the first 5 list. _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Parminder, Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 27 06:26:37 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:56:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080327100135.65FE96781F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080327102649.EC884E1F9E@smtp3.electricembers.net> The following is the list of 26 volunteers for the nomcom. Pl let me know if there is any correction or objection, by the end of the day. The final list will be published tomorrow. Parminder Milton Mueller Jeremy Malcolm Suresh Ramasubramanian Jeremy Shtern Robert Guerra Bret Faucett SCHOMBE Baudouin Vittorio Bertola Carlos Afonso Ian Peter Lee W. McKnight Maja Anjelkovic Gurumurthy K Rudi Vansnick Karen Banks Michael Gurstein Philippe Dam David Goldstein John Mathiason Hakikur Rahman Magaly Pazello Shaila Rao Mistry Izumi Aizu Rudi Rusdiah Raquel Gatto Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 27 06:31:18 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:01:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <0a8d01c88ff4$e4d7f6d0$ae87e470$@net> Message-ID: <20080327103136.441F4E1FC6@smtp3.electricembers.net> I did think of it as a possibility, which is why I said in my email. >I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. But the basic rule was difficult for me to entirely ignore. Parminder _____ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Michael Gurstein' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Are you sure his statement wasn't simply because of a communication gap / language issue? suresh From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:01 PM To: 'Michael Gurstein'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Yes, Michael, I did read about the organization and also saw that it is registered as civil society organization in the WSIS process. While Rudi could simple have said, 'I too volunteer', and I would have accepted it, the fact that he said he is volunteering form the "Indonesian private sector' does leave me with a problem. IGC membership rules are at present very loosely interpreted, (and we in any case need to do something about it, as I pointed out in an email a few days back) but the one rule which does seem to apply - as mentioned in the charter in the voting section, and on the ballot for voting the lat time we voted - is of self declaration as belonging to civil society. Now, Rudi's self declaration violates precisely that rule - which is the one that seems at present to be the only applied with any seriousness. In capacity of co-coordinator, who is the custodian of the charter and IGC processes, it is my duty to seek clarification on this matter. An example to explain this position will be someone coming on to volunteer, declaring that he volunteers from xyz government. I would refuse his offer, and seek clarification. I was only doing what I understand is an organizational duty. Parminder PS: Since the volunteers list has to be published today, I will keep Rudi provisionally on the volunteers list, which will be subject to random selection process. I will again seek self declaration if he does get to be on the first 5 list. _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Parminder, Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Thu Mar 27 06:41:34 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:41:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: Sponsorship for NGOs and CS entities to the CSTD 11th Session - Application process OPEN - deadline 1st April 2008 Message-ID: <200803271040.m2RAeTt8010216@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to remind you that the deadline for application to a sponsorship for civil society participants from developing countries or economies in transition is 1st April 2008, to attend the 11th session of the CSTD (26-30 May 2008) – and which can also be used for the previous meetings of the cluster of WSIS related events (mostly 19-23 May 2008). All modalities are detailed in my previous e-mail below. Please circulate this information to your networks. Note that a provisional calendar of WSIS related events at the UN is available at www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. Best, Philippe _____ De : CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : lundi, 10. mars 2008 21:44 À : 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : Sponsorship for NGOs and CS entities to the CSTD 11th Session - Application process OPEN Importance : Haute Dear all, As previously announced on that list, this is the most recent information regarding the opportunities of fellowships for civil society participants in the upcoming 11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, 26-30 May 2008 (in the UNCTAD jargon, sponsored CS participants are called procedure of invited meeting participants). The sponsorship procedure will allow around 12 civil society participants to be funded for their participation in the CSTD. This process is reserved for NGO and civil society representatives from developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The support for invited participants in the CTSD-11 will include an invitation letter to attend the 11th session of the CSTD, an economy class ticket and the normal UN Duty station allowance for Geneva for the duration of the CSTD session. In this regard, note that the daily allowance in Geneva as practiced within UNCATD is quite high so that civil society participants requesting this fellowship could easily opt for a reasonable price hotel / accommodation in Geneva and arrive in Geneva earlier for the beginning of the cluster of WSIS related meetings (Action Line Facilitation process and IGF Open consultation, see updated calendar at http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm), and therefore maximizing the use of he fellowship beyond the time of the CSTD session alone. Representatives of NGOs in Consultative Status with ECOSOC and of civil society entities accredited to WSIS are eligible for requesting a fellowship. Other criteria and conditions are precisely spelled out in the attached announcement. Deadline: The deadline for submission of the fellowship request is Tuesday 1 April 2008. The nomination form should be sent back at the following e-mail address: cstd-csparticipation at unctad.org NOTE THAT REQUESTS FOR SPONSORSHIP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES – and therefore their final repartition – WILL BE PROCESSED BY THE CTSD SECRETARIAT HOSTED BY UNCTAD and not by me or my organisation (CONGO). Please circulate this information to your networks. Feel free to get back to us for any question or request for additional information: we would be happy to liaise with the CTSD Secretariat. I’ll send in a few minutes additional information on the drafting process of the WSIS Report 2008, for which CS contributions and comments are highly welcome by the CSTD Secretariat. I’ll attach the current outline of the report. Links: - Commission on Science and Technology for Development: http://www.unctad.org/cstd - CONGO calendar of WSIS related meetings: www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm All the best, 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: Meeting participants, announcement.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 41472 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Nomination form final.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 48128 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Mar 27 06:56:37 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:56:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] TR: Sponsorship for NGOs and CS entities to In-Reply-To: <200803271040.m2RAeTt8010216@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> References: <200803271040.m2RAeTt8010216@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20080327105649.1014C2FD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> hi philippe thanks for the info do we have any more detail on the day by day agenda fro the CSTD meetings yet? karen At 10:41 27/03/2008, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: >Dear all, > >This is to remind you that the deadline for >application to a sponsorship for civil society >participants from developing countries or >economies in transition is 1st April 2008, to >attend the 11th session of the CSTD (26-30 May >2008) – and which can also be used for the >previous meetings of the cluster of WSIS related >events (mostly 19-23 May 2008). All modalities >are detailed in my previous e-mail below. > >Please circulate this information to your networks. >Note that a provisional calendar of WSIS related >events at the UN is available at >www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. > >Best, > >Philippe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Mar 27 12:13:07 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:13:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation to WSIS Action Lines facilitation meetings facilitated by the ITU (19-23 May 2008) Message-ID: <200803271612.m2RGC2Zh019503@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the official invitation letter to the Action Line Facilitation meetings facilitated by the ITU in next May: - 19-21 May: 3rd Facilitation Meeting on Action Lines C2, C4, and C6: I&C Infrastructures; Capacity Building; enabling environment. - 21 May: Facilitation Meeting on Action Line C7: E-Environment - 22-23 May: 3rd Facilitation Meeting on AL C5: Building confidence & security More information on these meetings can be found at http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster2008.html and on the calendar of WSIS related events at the UN available at www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. All the best, Ph Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: invitation-DM-08-1005.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 53522 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Thu Mar 27 12:30:25 2008 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:30:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: Sponsorship for NGOs and CS entities to the CSTD 11th Session - Application process OPEN - deadline 1st April 2008 In-Reply-To: <20080327105649.1014C2FD8A9@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <200803271629.m2RGTKM9014335@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Hi, The annotated agenda of the 11th CSTD session is available on line: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162008d1_en.pdf with the provisional timetable on Page 5 and 6. This is a provisional document, since they have been some propositions made on the actual format of the session to make it more articulated around a series 3-hour thematic dialogues, but it seems that no decision had been made so far (see attached my previous post dated 4 march 2008). I also reattach the briefing note which was circulated by the CTSD Secretariat last month. I finally take this occasion to remind you that the CSTD Secretariat announced it would welcome contributions and feedback from all stakeholders on the outline of the WSIS Follow-up Report 2008. See attached the outline, and my post in this regard here . Best, Ph _____ De : karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Envoyé : jeudi, 27. mars 2008 11:57 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; gov at wsis-gov.org Cc : 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; congo at ngocongo.org Objet : Re: [governance] TR: Sponsorship for NGOs and CS entities to the CSTD 11th Session - Application process OPEN - deadline 1st April 2008 hi philippe thanks for the info do we have any more detail on the day by day agenda fro the CSTD meetings yet? karen At 10:41 27/03/2008, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: Dear all, This is to remind you that the deadline for application to a sponsorship for civil society participants from developing countries or economies in transition is 1st April 2008, to attend the 11th session of the CSTD (26-30 May 2008) – and which can also be used for the previous meetings of the cluster of WSIS related events (mostly 19-23 May 2008). All modalities are detailed in my previous e-mail below. Please circulate this information to your networks. Note that a provisional calendar of WSIS related events at the UN is available at www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. Best, Philippe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Briefing note CSTD 2008 final.doc Type: application/msword Size: 115712 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" Subject: Update on CSTD E-list discussions Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:20:49 +0100 Size: 67650 URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outline of WSIS Follow-up Report 2008.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 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 rusdiah at rad.net.id Thu Mar 27 13:26:53 2008 From: rusdiah at rad.net.id (rusdiah at rad.net.id) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:26:53 +0700 (WIT) Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Message-ID: <60321.118.137.22.88.1206638813.squirrel@mail.rad.net.id> Dear Parminder and friends: Thank you for emails about my status. To make it clear , the situation is as follows: I am heading an association called APWKomitel ( http://www.apwkomitel.org   or http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/ )  which is nonprofit organizations which its members are public internet centers(PICs) in Indonesia and our association participated in WSIS 2005 in Tunis as CS. APWKomitel is also non government organization  ( or NGO ?) Public Internet center(PIC)  can be Internet cafe (in Indonesia we called it as warnet) , Telecenter  etc... some of our member are profit and some are for nonprofit, majority are SME. To be a member of the association you must own a PIC either profit or non profit... it happened that I owned an Internet Cafe as well. When I volunteer I represent my organization ( APWKomitel) Looking at the emails , I am also a bit confuse and probably  you may help define... whether I belong to CS  (or Private sector) from the above explanation ? I look at the definition of CS in wiki as follows: Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system) and commercial institutions. Hope this will clarify my status and again thank you for all your comments and nomination. Regards, Rudi Rusdiah Note: By the way... I also wonder if the volunteer required intensive/frequent  travelling... since travelling cost is a big burden for our associations (APW) which is also my handicap. Parminder wrote: Yes, Michael, I did read about the organization and also saw that it is registered as civil society organization in the WSIS process. While Rudi could simple have said, ‘I too volunteer’, and I would have accepted it, the fact that he said he is volunteering form the “Indonesian private sector’ does leave me with a problem.   IGC membership rules are at present very loosely interpreted, (and we in any case need to do something about it, as I pointed out in an email a few days back) but the one rule which does seem to apply – as mentioned in the charter in the voting section, and on the ballot for voting the lat time we voted – is of self declaration as belonging to civil society.   Now, Rudi’s self declaration violates precisely that rule – which is the one that seems at present to be the only applied with any seriousness. In capacity of co-coordinator, who is the custodian of the charter and IGC processes, it is my duty to seek clarification on this matter.   An example to explain this position will be someone coming on to volunteer, declaring that he volunteers from xyz government. I would refuse his offer, and seek clarification. I was only doing what I understand is an organizational duty.   Parminder    PS: Since the volunteers list has to be published today, I will keep Rudi provisionally on the volunteers list, which will be subject to random selection process. I will again seek self declaration if he does get to be on the first 5 list.       From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG   Parminder,   Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises...   MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented.   However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO.   To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom.  And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus.    So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as ‘from Indonesia private sector’ I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues.   I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone.   Thanks and Regards   Parminder     From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG   I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 27 15:03:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:33:09 +0530 Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <60321.118.137.22.88.1206638813.squirrel@mail.rad.net.id> Message-ID: <20080327190339.8F49FA6CA9@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear Rudi It is very fine if you identify yourself as CS, which is (mostly) enough for the present purpose. The wiki definition you quote I think makes the distinctions I spoke of quite clear. We have your name in the volunteers list. In reply to your query about whether volunteering requires extensive travel etc, I must clarify two points (1) The list of volunteers would be subject to a random selection process, and five chosen for a nominating committee (nomcom) for recommending some CS members for the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF on behalf of the IGC. (2) This nomcom will work over a week early next month, through email consultations, and will be disbanded after they announce the list of recommended persons. Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:57 PM To: Parminder; rusdiah at rad.net.id Cc: 'Michael Gurstein'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Dear Parminder and friends: Thank you for emails about my status. To make it clear , the situation is as follows: I am heading an association called APWKomitel ( http://www.apwkomitel.org or http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/ ) which is nonprofit organizations which its members are public internet centers(PICs) in Indonesia and our association participated in WSIS 2005 in Tunis as CS. APWKomitel is also non government organization ( or NGO ?) Public Internet center(PIC) can be Internet cafe (in Indonesia we called it as warnet) , Telecenter etc... some of our member are profit and some are for nonprofit, majority are SME. To be a member of the association you must own a PIC either profit or non profit... it happened that I owned an Internet Cafe as well. When I volunteer I represent my organization ( APWKomitel) Looking at the emails , I am also a bit confuse and probably you may help define... whether I belong to CS (or Private sector) from the above explanation ? I look at the definition of CS in wiki as follows: Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system) and commercial institutions. Hope this will clarify my status and again thank you for all your comments and nomination. Regards, Rudi Rusdiah Note: By the way... I also wonder if the volunteer required intensive/frequent travelling... since travelling cost is a big burden for our associations (APW) which is also my handicap. Parminder wrote: Yes, Michael, I did read about the organization and also saw that it is registered as civil society organization in the WSIS process. While Rudi could simple have said, 'I too volunteer', and I would have accepted it, the fact that he said he is volunteering form the "Indonesian private sector' does leave me with a problem. IGC membership rules are at present very loosely interpreted, (and we in any case need to do something about it, as I pointed out in an email a few days back) but the one rule which does seem to apply - as mentioned in the charter in the voting section, and on the ballot for voting the lat time we voted - is of self declaration as belonging to civil society. Now, Rudi's self declaration violates precisely that rule - which is the one that seems at present to be the only applied with any seriousness. In capacity of co-coordinator, who is the custodian of the charter and IGC processes, it is my duty to seek clarification on this matter. An example to explain this position will be someone coming on to volunteer, declaring that he volunteers from xyz government. I would refuse his offer, and seek clarification. I was only doing what I understand is an organizational duty. Parminder PS: Since the volunteers list has to be published today, I will keep Rudi provisionally on the volunteers list, which will be subject to random selection process. I will again seek self declaration if he does get to be on the first 5 list. _____ From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Parminder, Based on what Rudi has said below and what I understand about the role of Warnets in Indonesia (a rather unique hybrid of a cybercafe and a telecentre) I would guess that both he and his association would qualify as CS (they operate as revenue based community micro-enteprises... MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: March 25, 2008 6:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG Thanks a lot, Rudi. We do need more people to volunteer, and especially from different parts of the world, which may currently be under-represented. However, I am not clear about your self-declaration which mentions both private sector and NGO. To be a full member of the IGC one has to self-declare oneself as a civil society person. Such full membership is necessary to hold caucus appointments, like being on the nomcom. And as understood by us, civil society stands in some kind of a distinction vis a vis governments and governance institutions on one hand, and private / business sector on the other. This distinction for us is most valid from the point of view of the principal political identity and representation a person brings in vis a vis IG policies and advocacy, the arena of activity of this caucus. So responding to way you have proposed your volunteer-ship as 'from Indonesia private sector' I must seek this clarification from you whether you affirm yourself to be civil society person, and representing public interest, and not private and/or business interests, individually or in aggregation, in terms of your engagement with IG issues. I am sorry if this appears a bit complicated, and I am happy to give any clarification on this list, or offlist, i.e. in response to an email send to my id alone. Thanks and Regards Parminder _____ From: rusdiah at rad.net.id [mailto:rusdiah at rad.net.id] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rudi Vansnick Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APW - Indonesia [governance] NOMCOM - MAG I am willing to volunteer from Indonesia Private Sector (NGO) : Rudi Rusdiah Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Asosiasi Pengusaha Warnet) ( http://www.apwkomitel.org , community mailing list: apwkomitel at yahoogroups.com (3,000 members) ) Jakarta , Indonesia GSM: +6281 677 4203 Fax: +6221 7507545 > hi > > as per email parminder, i'm available for nomcom > > karen > > At 01:25 20/03/2008, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>I'm willing to serve in the nomcom. >> >>Rudi Vansnick >>President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw >>Board member ISOC-ECC Barcelona-Spain >>EURALO board member >>/Dendermondesteenweg 143 - B-9070 Destelbergen >>Belgium >>GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ >>http://www.isoc.be >> >> >>Parminder schreef: >>> >>>Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>>I request urgent submission of names by those ready to volunteer >>>for the noncom. We need 25 names to do a random selection of 5, and >>>we have till now only a couple. Pl do it today, preferably. >>> >>> >>> >>>We need to have a nomcom as soon as possible. >>> >>> >>>Meanwhile the discussion on the issue of how and why of rotation >>>can go on, and the nomcom can pick up the sense of the group from >>>these discussions, and if they wish engage directly with the group >>>for clarifications. Meanwhile, I will try to evoke discussions on >>>key issues and information that are important for the nomcom to >>>achieve its purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>>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 avri at psg.com Thu Mar 27 15:41:38 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:41:38 +0100 Subject: Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel [governance] NOMCOM - MAG In-Reply-To: <20080327190339.8F49FA6CA9@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080327190339.8F49FA6CA9@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 27 Mar 2008, at 20:03, Parminder wrote: > (2) This nomcom will work over a week early next month, through > email consultations, and will be disbanded after they announce the > list of recommended persons. > skype conference calling can work pretty well too - it the time zone problem can be dealt with. 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 pwilson at apnic.net Thu Mar 27 19:18:05 2008 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:18:05 +1000 Subject: [governance] Telecoms competition in Kosovo Message-ID: <33F0BE8E38BE1E4FD575C7A2@as-paul-l-900.local> On the risks of deregulating your telecommunications sector... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657045260666757.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone > Bullets Fly > > One morning later that month, Mr. Berisha was riding in a car to work > with his aunt and her daughter when gunmen emerged from the side of the > road and opened fire on their car. No one was injured. > > Just six weeks later, Mr. Berisha, by then commuting in a police vehicle > with two armed officers, was attacked again. This time, one of the gunmen > launched a rocket at the car. It didn't explode properly, and injured > only the driver, he says. > > One of the alleged attackers, later arrested, turned out to be an > official of PTK, the local telecom operator. Mr. Berisha believes his > attackers were upset that he had awarded a mobile-phone license to a > Slovenian operator and at the prospect of new competition. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 28 06:10:53 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:10:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] CoE adopts (good) Recommendation on FoE and Internet Filters Message-ID: <4AC84EF9-D212-4057-87BF-FB7725944A47@ras.eu.org> Dear all, The Council of Europe has now adopted its Recommendation on "measures to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information with regard to Internet filters" (Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)6, adopted on 26 March 2008). It is at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2008)6 An explanatory report can be found at: https://wcd.coe.int/ ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM(2008)37&Ver=add This Recommendation is a good one, to my knowledge the best text to date on Internet filters and FoE provided by an intergovernemental institution. The Recommendation has been prepared by the CoE group of specialists on human rights in the information society, to which EDRI (European digital rights, www.edri.org) is an active observer. I'm reproducing below part of an article published on 21 November 2007 in EDRI newsletter, after the last meeting of the group of specialists, as a report on this meeting: "Members and observers of the MC-S-IS group discussed the documents prepared by Austria (MC-S-IS group vice-chair) and Armenia representatives, with the help of the MC-S-IS Secretariat as well as of EDRI as observer. EDRI had the opportunity to suggest many changes to both documents before their submission to the whole group, and almost all these changes were included. As many members of the group acknowledged, this Recommendation would be the first important document breaking off the usual national, European and international rhetoric of "technical filtering panacea" to fight illegal or harmful content, in that it reintroduces the need to respect human rights standards, first and foremost freedom of expression, but also the right to privacy and other provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, including the rule of law principle. One member, namely Norway, insisted though on the "impression the documents gave that governments wont be allowed to any content filtering of blocking" anymore, but it was rather isolated in such position. The final draft document recommends that CoE member States "take measures to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information as regards technical filtering measures in line with provided guidelines", as well as "to bring these guidelines to the attention of all relevant private and public sector stakeholders, in particular those who design, activate, use and monitor technical filtering measures, and civil society, so that they can contribute to their implementation." The draft Recommendation sets out detailed guidelines on: (I) "Using and controlling filters in order to fully exercise and enjoy the right to freedom of expression and information", (II) "Appropriate filtering for children and young people", and (III) "Use and application of filtering systems by State actors and the private sector"." (Full article at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.22/coe-content- regulation) Best, Meryem Marzouki ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 28 13:18:40 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:48:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] CoE adopts (good) Recommendation on FoE and Internet Filters In-Reply-To: <4AC84EF9-D212-4057-87BF-FB7725944A47@ras.eu.org> References: <4AC84EF9-D212-4057-87BF-FB7725944A47@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <020301c890f7$c6396070$52ac2150$@net> Now this one is really good, and something I can live with. Email reviewing this below from a friend with rather better legal training than I have, and am glad to see he agrees with me. [anonymized his name etc of course] Suresh ------ There are explicit mentions of Article 10, Section 2: --START-- The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. --END-- It would seem to me, being the unlearned American that I am, that spam filtering and the use of walled gardens (and etc.), would fall squarely within the "prevention of disorder or crime," "the protection of health or morals," and "the protection of the reputation or rights of others" exceptions found there. The warning for private actors seems to be "make sure your content filters" are adjustable, granular, and not heavy-handed. --------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] CoE adopts (good) Recommendation on FoE and > Internet Filters > > Dear all, > > The Council of Europe has now adopted its Recommendation on "measures > to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information with > regard to Internet filters" (Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)6, adopted on > 26 March 2008). > It is at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2008)6 > An explanatory report can be found at: https://wcd.coe.int/ > ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM(2008)37&Ver=add ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 28 13:27:16 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:57:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080324103143.DA13567860@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> The final numbered list of nomcom volunteers is as follows. I thank all those who have volunteered. The seeds will be drawn tomorrow and the nomcom announced on Sunday, the day after. Parminder 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jeremy Malcolm 3. Suresh Ramasubramanian 4. Jeremy Shtern 5. Robert Guerra 6. Bret Faucett 7. SCHOMBE Baudouin 8. Vittorio Bertola 9. Carlos Afonso 10. Ian Peter 11. Lee W. McKnight 12. Maja Anjelkovic 13. Gurumurthy K 14. Rudi Vansnick 15. Karen Banks 16. Michael Gurstein 17. Philippe Dam 18. David Goldstein 19. John Mathiason 20. Hakikur Rahman 21. Magaly Pazello 22. Shaila Rao Mistry 23. Izumi Aizu 24. Rudi Rusdiah 25. Raquel Gatto 26. Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Mar 28 14:34:34 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:34:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] LA&C caucus -- online voting started In-Reply-To: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47ED3A3A.3070704@rits.org.br> Dear people of the CSIGC, Just to let you know that today at 15:00 UTC we have started the online voting process to choose our indications for the MAG. To take into account the weekend (for many people it is an Internetless period), we have extended the voting period to April 02 15:00 UTC. The electoral college is constituted of all subscribers to the alc-cmsi list as of March 25 20:00 Brasília time (65 voters). As soon as the results are in, we will send the IGC and the IGF secretariat the list of names. fraternal regards --c.a. Parminder wrote: > > > The final numbered list of nomcom volunteers is as follows. I thank all > those who have volunteered. > > > > The seeds will be drawn tomorrow and the nomcom announced on Sunday, the day > after. Parminder > > > > 1. Milton Mueller > > 2. Jeremy Malcolm > > 3. Suresh Ramasubramanian > > 4. Jeremy Shtern > > 5. Robert Guerra > > 6. Bret Faucett > > 7. SCHOMBE Baudouin > > 8. Vittorio Bertola > > 9. Carlos Afonso > > 10. Ian Peter > > 11. Lee W. McKnight > > 12. Maja Anjelkovic > > 13. Gurumurthy K > > 14. Rudi Vansnick > > 15. Karen Banks > > 16. Michael Gurstein > > 17. Philippe Dam > > 18. David Goldstein > > 19. John Mathiason > > 20. Hakikur Rahman > > 21. Magaly Pazello > > 22. Shaila Rao Mistry > > 23. Izumi Aizu > > 24. Rudi Rusdiah > > 25. Raquel Gatto > > 26. Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor) conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) ******************************************************************* Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br ******************************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Mar 28 14:41:24 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:41:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] LA&C caucus -- online voting started In-Reply-To: <47ED3A3A.3070704@rits.org.br> References: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> <47ED3A3A.3070704@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <47ED3BD4.6060709@rits.org.br> Ooops, ballots will close at 21:00 UTC on April 02, not 15:00 UTC. --c.a. Carlos Afonso wrote: > Dear people of the CSIGC, > > Just to let you know that today at 15:00 UTC we have started the online > voting process to choose our indications for the MAG. > > To take into account the weekend (for many people it is an Internetless > period), we have extended the voting period to April 02 15:00 UTC. The > electoral college is constituted of all subscribers to the alc-cmsi list > as of March 25 20:00 Brasília time (65 voters). > > As soon as the results are in, we will send the IGC and the IGF > secretariat the list of names. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > Parminder wrote: >> >> >> The final numbered list of nomcom volunteers is as follows. I thank all >> those who have volunteered. >> >> >> >> The seeds will be drawn tomorrow and the nomcom announced on Sunday, the day >> after. Parminder >> >> >> >> 1. Milton Mueller >> >> 2. Jeremy Malcolm >> >> 3. Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >> 4. Jeremy Shtern >> >> 5. Robert Guerra >> >> 6. Bret Faucett >> >> 7. SCHOMBE Baudouin >> >> 8. Vittorio Bertola >> >> 9. Carlos Afonso >> >> 10. Ian Peter >> >> 11. Lee W. McKnight >> >> 12. Maja Anjelkovic >> >> 13. Gurumurthy K >> >> 14. Rudi Vansnick >> >> 15. Karen Banks >> >> 16. Michael Gurstein >> >> 17. Philippe Dam >> >> 18. David Goldstein >> >> 19. John Mathiason >> >> 20. Hakikur Rahman >> >> 21. Magaly Pazello >> >> 22. Shaila Rao Mistry >> >> 23. Izumi Aizu >> >> 24. Rudi Rusdiah >> >> 25. Raquel Gatto >> >> 26. Tapani Tarvainen >> >> >> >> >> > -- Carlos A. Afonso direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor) conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) ******************************************************************* Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br ******************************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 28 17:21:50 2008 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:21:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] 3rd GigaNet Annual Symposium - Hyderabad, 2 December 2008 - Call for Papers Message-ID: <8E93142E-531E-47BB-9B49-55C797F32DD4@ras.eu.org> [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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GigaNetSymp-CFP2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 104299 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From iza at anr.org Sat Mar 29 01:24:45 2008 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:24:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080324103143.DA13567860@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Thank you Parminder for your great effort to put us together! izumi 2008/3/29, Parminder : > > > > The final numbered list of nomcom volunteers is as follows. I thank all > those who have volunteered. > > > > The seeds will be drawn tomorrow and the nomcom announced on Sunday, the > day after. Parminder > > > > 1. Milton Mueller > > 2. Jeremy Malcolm > > 3. Suresh Ramasubramanian > > 4. Jeremy Shtern > > 5. Robert Guerra > > 6. Bret Faucett > > 7. SCHOMBE Baudouin > > 8. Vittorio Bertola > > 9. Carlos Afonso > > 10. Ian Peter > > 11. Lee W. McKnight > > 12. Maja Anjelkovic > > 13. Gurumurthy K > > 14. Rudi Vansnick > > 15. Karen Banks > > 16. Michael Gurstein > > 17. Philippe Dam > > 18. David Goldstein > > 19. John Mathiason > > 20. Hakikur Rahman > > 21. Magaly Pazello > > 22. Shaila Rao Mistry > > 23. Izumi Aizu > > 24. Rudi Rusdiah > > 25. Raquel Gatto > > 26. Tapani Tarvainen > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Sat Mar 29 04:51:07 2008 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:51:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: References: <20080324103143.DA13567860@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Congratulations Parminder for your effort and I will give my best to this volunteer engagement. Baudouin 2008/3/29, Izumi AIZU : > > Thank you Parminder for your great effort to put us together! > > izumi > > 2008/3/29, Parminder : > > > > > > > > The final numbered list of nomcom volunteers is as follows. I thank all > > those who have volunteered. > > > > > > > > The seeds will be drawn tomorrow and the nomcom announced on Sunday, the > > day after. Parminder > > > > > > > > 1. Milton Mueller > > > > 2. Jeremy Malcolm > > > > 3. Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > 4. Jeremy Shtern > > > > 5. Robert Guerra > > > > 6. Bret Faucett > > > > 7. SCHOMBE Baudouin > > > > 8. Vittorio Bertola > > > > 9. Carlos Afonso > > > > 10. Ian Peter > > > > 11. Lee W. McKnight > > > > 12. Maja Anjelkovic > > > > 13. Gurumurthy K > > > > 14. Rudi Vansnick > > > > 15. Karen Banks > > > > 16. Michael Gurstein > > > > 17. Philippe Dam > > > > 18. David Goldstein > > > > 19. John Mathiason > > > > 20. Hakikur Rahman > > > > 21. Magaly Pazello > > > > 22. Shaila Rao Mistry > > > > 23. Izumi Aizu > > > > 24. Rudi Rusdiah > > > > 25. Raquel Gatto > > > > 26. 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 > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 29 08:05:21 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:35:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080329120533.C36BBE1FC0@smtp3.electricembers.net> A correction of small typo 12. Maja Andjelkovic Instead of as present Thanks, and apologies. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations The final numbered list of nomcom volunteers is as follows. I thank all those who have volunteered. The seeds will be drawn tomorrow and the nomcom announced on Sunday, the day after. Parminder 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jeremy Malcolm 3. Suresh Ramasubramanian 4. Jeremy Shtern 5. Robert Guerra 6. Bret Faucett 7. SCHOMBE Baudouin 8. Vittorio Bertola 9. Carlos Afonso 10. Ian Peter 11. Lee W. McKnight 12. Maja Anjelkovic 13. Gurumurthy K 14. Rudi Vansnick 15. Karen Banks 16. Michael Gurstein 17. Philippe Dam 18. David Goldstein 19. John Mathiason 20. Hakikur Rahman 21. Magaly Pazello 22. Shaila Rao Mistry 23. Izumi Aizu 24. Rudi Rusdiah 25. Raquel Gatto 26. Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Sat Mar 29 09:51:29 2008 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:51:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] LA&C caucus -- online voting started In-Reply-To: <47ED3A3A.3070704@rits.org.br> References: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> <47ED3A3A.3070704@rits.org.br> Message-ID: please can you explain me the process and I am not sure to be in alc-cmsi list???? Baudouin 2008/3/28, Carlos Afonso : > > Dear people of the CSIGC, > > Just to let you know that today at 15:00 UTC we have started the online > voting process to choose our indications for the MAG. > > To take into account the weekend (for many people it is an Internetless > period), we have extended the voting period to April 02 15:00 UTC. The > electoral college is constituted of all subscribers to the alc-cmsi list > as of March 25 20:00 Brasília time (65 voters). > > As soon as the results are in, we will send the IGC and the IGF > secretariat the list of names. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > Parminder wrote: > > > > > > The final numbered list of nomcom volunteers is as follows. I thank all > > those who have volunteered. > > > > > > > > The seeds will be drawn tomorrow and the nomcom announced on Sunday, the > day > > after. Parminder > > > > > > > > 1. Milton Mueller > > > > 2. Jeremy Malcolm > > > > 3. Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > 4. Jeremy Shtern > > > > 5. Robert Guerra > > > > 6. Bret Faucett > > > > 7. SCHOMBE Baudouin > > > > 8. Vittorio Bertola > > > > 9. Carlos Afonso > > > > 10. Ian Peter > > > > 11. Lee W. McKnight > > > > 12. Maja Anjelkovic > > > > 13. Gurumurthy K > > > > 14. Rudi Vansnick > > > > 15. Karen Banks > > > > 16. Michael Gurstein > > > > 17. Philippe Dam > > > > 18. David Goldstein > > > > 19. John Mathiason > > > > 20. Hakikur Rahman > > > > 21. Magaly Pazello > > > > 22. Shaila Rao Mistry > > > > 23. Izumi Aizu > > > > 24. Rudi Rusdiah > > > > 25. Raquel Gatto > > > > 26. Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor) > conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) > ******************************************************************* > Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com > software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo > Digital. Para mais informações: > www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br > ******************************************************************* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE TEL:00243998983491 EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Mar 29 11:26:54 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:26:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [cracin-discussion] ACTION ALERT: Demand net neutrality now Message-ID: <000401c891b1$528c8980$8b00a8c0@michael78xnoln> Since there has been a continuing discussion on issues related to Net Neutrality on this list I think the discussion which follows below is worth passing along... Brian Beaton is the co-ordinator of a very significant Canadian aboriginal organization (http://knet-ca) which is managing a terrestrial, microwave and now satellite based infrastructure, servicing very remote (fly in) communities in Northern Ontario (and soon to include Northern Manitoba and Northern Quebec) through the Northern Indigenous Communities Satellite Network (NICSN)) (I'm advising the network on a major long-term community informatics impact assessment and research capacity building activity (NICSN: RC) alongside this network). What is crucial to know about K-Net is that by having control over their own network they have been able to design, develop and deploy a very broad range of highly innovative services into their communities including telemedicine, http://health.knet.ca/ a northern based and indigenous controlled high school (e-learning) http://kihs.knet.ca/ , and a range of (mostly videoconference) supports to local development and e-governance http://media.knet.ca/taxonomy/term/50?page=1. I think what Brian is articulating is the position of any indigenous Internet carrier anywhere who is trying to use the Internet infrastructure to achieve a variety of socially beneficial "effective uses" and in that I would include a range of other parallel activities in other remote regions and in a variety of Less Developed Countries. For Brian the avaiability of bandwidth to support telemedicine services in the absence of sufficient overall bandwidth trumps abstract notions of "Net Neutrality". So, as the Net Neutrality discussion goes forward, mostly pressed by those with access to bountiful bandwidth resources the issue becomes either to support what will ultimately be a damaging policy for folks like K-Net or to include measures to ensure sufficient bandwidth FOR ALL in the Net Neutraliy equation. (BTW, if it needed repeating, this should reinforce the necessity to include a much broader range of voices and particularly the voices of those working on using Internet for socially beneficial uses on the ground in any of our discussions concerning Internet Governance, ICT for Development or whatever.) MG Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1 http://www.communityinformatics.net tel./fax +1-604-602-0624 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Beaton [mailto:brian.beaton at knet.ca] Sent: March 28, 2008 7:55 AM To: 'Alison Powell'; cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net Cc: 'Lyle Johnson'; 'Jeannie Carpenter'; pennycarpenter at knet.ca; 'Adi Linden'; 'Terence Burnard'; 'Jamie Ray' Subject: RE: [cracin-discussion] ACTION ALERT: Demand net neutrality now Alison . Thanks for asking and for caring about this issue. Maybe some of the things that these efforts need to include is a parallel effort to: Deliver equitable access to the required telecom infrastructure to support broadband connections for all Canadians at the same cost. Today, this net neutrality debate seems to me to be more for those who can afford broadband connections and for the most part for those who live in over-served urban environments where there are all these different choices for network services. Support the ability to throttle (I did not say kill [smiles] but that is what I think about) those people who want to abuse the network services for their own benefit (ie all those illegal downloads and P2P abusers) at the expense of other network users who just want to check out my web page [smiles]. There are lots of alternatives for these network abusers, for example they might be forced to wait an hour for their movie instead of getting it in 30 seconds, so the rest of us can check the weather or whatever [smiles]. Take the necessary steps in the proper order, ie. equitable infrastructure comes before equitable access IMHO, required to get the same infrastructure and service options in place instead of simply assuming that everyone is at the same place and wants these same things that the folks in positions of privilege assume we want. Ensure that any policy or legislation respects the different realities that exist across the country. What else? Brian Beaton, K-Net Coordinator Keewaytinook Okimakanak Box 1439, 115 King Street Sioux Lookout, ON, P8T 1B9 T: 807-737-1135 x1251 F: 807-737-1720 IP and ISDN video conferencing E: brianbeaton at knet.ca W: http://knet.ca From: Alison Powell [mailto:a_powell at alcor.concordia.ca] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:01 AM To: brian.beaton at knet.ca Cc: cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net; 'Lyle Johnson'; 'Jeannie Carpenter'; pennycarpenter at knet.ca; 'Adi Linden'; 'Terence Burnard'; 'Jamie Ray' Subject: Re: [cracin-discussion] ACTION ALERT: Demand net neutrality now Thank you so much for this important reminder Brian. I see the Net Neutrality as an issue of fair and equal access for all Canadians - but I would like to correct any urban bias I might be working with. Do you or anyone else at K-Net have any specific suggestions on how to frame access issues for rural and remote communities within lobby campaigns? Thanks again, alison. Brian Beaton wrote: Thanks for this Alison. I feel it is important that EVERYONE understand that K-Net and the community networks we serve are FORCED to do traffic shaping on our network because of the lack of infrastructure and the cost of bandwidth serving remote and rural communities across Canada. Our reality is affected, in part, by the folks in the cities who are fighting to prevent the telcos from utilizing the Telecom Deferral Fund for infrastructure upgrades. City-based "consumer" groups are leading a legal battle to get that fund reassigned so "joe public" can get a $5 or $6 rebate on their telephone bill rather than supporting the development of the necessary infrastructure to support equitable access in remote and rural communities. I fear that any policy on Net Neutrality that is created in the cities to serve urban dwellers will only once again make it very difficult for the rest of us to do the work we need to be doing to live and work in remote and rural communities across the vast parts of Canada. I hope everyone will include our reality in their letter writing campaigns and maybe once in a while think about us as these types of campaigns and publications are distributed. Brian Beaton, K-Net Coordinator Keewaytinook Okimakanak Box 1439, 115 King Street Sioux Lookout, ON, P8T 1B9 T: 807-737-1135 x1251 F: 807-737-1720 IP and ISDN video conferencing E: brianbeaton at knet.ca W: http://knet.ca From: Alison Powell [mailto:a_powell at alcor.concordia.ca] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:18 AM To: cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: [cracin-discussion] ACTION ALERT: Demand net neutrality now Time for Canada's Net Neutrality fight! An action alert from Campaign for Democratic Media. ACTION ALERT: Demand net neutrality now As recently reported by various news outlets, Bell Canada plans to have its 'third-party ISP traffic shaping' policy implemented across its entire network by April 7. This policy is more accurately referred to as 'throttling', or the practice of shaping Internet traffic by selectively limiting bandwidth. According to a press release issued by the Campaign for Democratic Media today, without government intervention to prevent this practice, "Internet users will have much less choice in online media, will be restrained in their ability to freely communicate and could end up with a largely prescribed menu of 'choices,' many of which will only be available from these very same ISPs." The Council of Canadians is a founding member of the Campaign for Democratic Media and supports the network's call for enforceable legislation on net neutrality - a principle that requires Internet service providers not to discriminate by speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. To learn more, see: - The Campaign for Democratic Media, http://democraticmedia.ca/netneutrality - An insightful blog entry by Michael Geist on the matter, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2787/125/ - 'Bell Sympatico Throttles Internet Access' video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlMbxosLtaY TAKE ACTION You are encouraged to send the following sample letter to Industry Minister Jim Prentice demanding legislation on net neutrality that would prevent big service providers from restricting our ability to communicate and access information freely on the Internet. CONTACT INFORMATION Industry Minister Jim Prentice (MP, Calgary Centre-North) Ministry telephone: 613-995-9001 Ministry fax: 613-992-0302 Constituency office telephone: 403-216-7777 Constituency office fax: 403-230-4368 E-mail: Prentice.J at parl.gc.ca or Minister.Industry at ic.gc.ca SAMPLE LETTER Minister Prentice, I am deeply concerned about Bell Canada's recent announcement that it will make its practice of throttling official starting April 7. Canada does not have strict enforceable net neutrality legislation and so there is very little structure in place to prevent the big ISPs from discriminating by speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. I am outraged that Canada does not have a policy to protect my ability to communicate and access information freely on the Internet and urge you to take action on this matter immediately. Sincerely, Meera Karunananthan, Media officer, Council of Canadians MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 27, 2008 Canada must adopt legislation to stop Bell Canada from shortchanging the public, says coalition The Campaign for Democratic Media! is outraged at Bell Canada's recent announcement that it will begin throttling Internet service providers (ISPs) starting April 7 - a policy uncovered and made official after Canadian ISPs realized they were being shortchanged by the telecommunications giant which had begun selectively limiting the ISPs' bandwidth. "The problem is that Canada does not have strict legislation to prevent big ISPs from turning the Internet into a network resembling a tolled highway with a slow lane and a fast lane," says Steve Anderson, coordinator for the Campaign for Democratic Media. "This means Internet users will have much less choice in online media, will be restrained in their ability to freely communicate and could end up with a largely prescribed menu of 'choices,' many of which will only be available from these very same ISPs." The organization, a coalition of civil society organizations, academics and grassroots media activists, is calling for the federal government to adopt enforceable net neutrality legislation that would require Internet service providers not to discriminate, including speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. "Net neutrality protects our ability to direct our own online activities," says Anderson. "With net neutrality in place, a network's job is to move data in a non-discriminatory manner, based on what people want." About us: The Campaign for Democratic Media! (CDM) is a network of civil society organizations, academics and grassroots media activists from across the country who are interested in helping to create the conditions for diverse, accountable and quality Canadian media. -30- For more information, please contact Steve Anderson at: 604-837-5730; stephena at sfu.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From info at e-fem.net Sat Mar 29 15:54:54 2008 From: info at e-fem.net (Magaly Pazello) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:54:54 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080329120533.C36BBE1FC0@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080329120533.C36BBE1FC0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <49420.201.51.170.69.1206820494.squirrel@webmail.e-fem.net> Hi Parminder, I didn't see Ginger (Virginia Paque) in the list, in her words she is one "conscientious volunteer". Magaly ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Mar 29 15:57:52 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:27:52 -0430 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations References: <20080328172730.8E76368646@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080329120533.C36BBE1FC0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <49420.201.51.170.69.1206820494.squirrel@webmail.e-fem.net> Message-ID: <004701c891d7$2f74d080$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Magaly, Parminder clarified that I have not been a member for the required two-month minimum. Thanks for asking. Saludos everybody! Ginger ----- Original Message ----- From: Magaly Pazello To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Parminder Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Hi Parminder, I didn't see Ginger (Virginia Paque) in the list, in her words she is one "conscientious volunteer". Magaly ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 30 05:36:58 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:06:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080330093838.705C9E04CB@smtp3.electricembers.net> We need to continue this discussion on IGC sponsored workshops. My suggestions... > 2- "Critical Internet resources" > or whatever this may me called. Adam's proposing "Arrangements for > Internet governance", but I'm afraid this title may be misleading. I > think the idea is the same, however) Istn this too generic as stated here. I could not understand what would 'arrangements for IG' stand for. On the other hand, Meryem, in this list of 3 you did not include the proposal for a workshop on nonprofit/ public/ welfare aspect of the Internet and its implications for IG. Some support for this workshop has been expressed, and some discussion taken place. The last was about naming it something like "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -- implications for IG" But I think it will need some more work... Meanwhile it is interesting to note that Council or Europe in its recent resolution (at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2008)6 ) further expound the 'public value' aspect of the Internet that it has been speaking about for some time now. To quote " Aware of the public service value of the Internet, understood as people’s significant reliance on the Internet as an essential tool for their everyday activities (communication, information, knowledge, commercial transactions, entertainment) and the resulting legitimate expectation that Internet services be accessible, affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing and recalling in this regard Recommendation Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet." I think this is an important 'higher level' issue for IG that CS must push. And therefore a workshop on this issue of public value or publicness of the Internet will be useful. > 3- "Technical and contractual means of law enforcement and control: > revising the competence of jurisdictions?" > This may be rewritten, but I hope you get the idea. There is good agreement on a workshop roughly around this topic, but again this needs more work. I suggest something like - "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual, technical and private means/instruments'. I know this is spectacularly inelegant, but just contributing this as a general idea of what its content can be. And we may do a place-holder for present - with something shorter and crisper - and expound the idea further as we prepare the final format and title for the workshop. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:12 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 > > Hi Parminder and all, > > Le 25 mars 08 à 13:50, Parminder a écrit : > > > > As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong > > proposals... > > > > I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th > > March. We > > have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it. > > Note it's April 30, not March 30. But still, not that much time to > achieve this:) > > > We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks > > (pl point > > out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here) > > I share Bill's and your suggestion to concentrate on 2-3 well defined > IGC workshops, with co-sponsorship possibilities for other workshops. > > I support these three themes, for IGC workshops: > > 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF" (follow-up of last year workshop) > > 2- "Critical Internet resources" > or whatever this may me called. Adam's proposing "Arrangements for > Internet governance", but I'm afraid this title may be misleading. I > think the idea is the same, however) > > 3- "Technical and contractual means of law enforcement and control: > revising the competence of jurisdictions?" > This may be rewritten, but I hope you get the idea. The point is that > if we organize a workshop on "cross-country jurisdiction issues", I'm > afraid we'll fall into years-old very specific and technical legal > debates, while not addressing the main point w.r.t. Internet > governance, which is how technical and contractual means are used to > circumvent national laws (sovereignty issue but also breaches of the > rule of law), to circumvent or overcome the competence of > jurisdiction issue, as well as to insidiously establish non legal > standards. Thus, it's a wider topic. > Re: technical means, we touch on the issue of IPR as well as on > content regulation through filtering > Re: contractual means, we can deal with notice and take down > procedures, etc. (most recent example of such case: Network Solutions > - as host provider, not as registrar - suspending the > fitnathemovie.com website, see: http://newsroom.networksolutions.com/ > 2008/network-solutions-statement-on-fitnathemoviecom/) > It seems to me that this would allow, more generally, to discuss all > the issues synthetized in Willie's message (http://lists.cpsr.org/ > lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00147.html). > > Best, > Meryem > > > > > Roughly put they are > > > > - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG > > > > - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet - > > Implications for IG > > > > And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on 'role and > > mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair. > > > > And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes > > can be > > rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and > > What Is > > the Status of It > > > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > > Internet > > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > > > (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb > > consultations is > > given below) > > > > Parminder > > > > > > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and > > What Is > > the Status of It > > > > Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for global > > Internet policy making. There are different views about what > > exactly is > > meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute 'enhanced > > cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning and > > possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all > > stakeholders > > in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS. It is quite possible > > that such > > an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation' > > forward, > > which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at > > least some > > degree of confusion. > > > > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > > Internet > > > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle > > for the > > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as > > Internet becomes > > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and > > social > > activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical > > layer, but > > also increasingly in the content and application layers. This > > session will > > examine the implication of this principle, and its possible > > evolutionary > > interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. > > > > > > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for > > the IGF. > > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens > > and Rio > > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted > > significant, > > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance > > mechanisms and > > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil > > society > > actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and > > other > > partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development > > Agenda for > > Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for > > establishing > > a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream > > development considerations into Internet governance decision making > > processes. > > > > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further > > work on the > > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development > > Agenda > > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that > > this > > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > > support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a > > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations > > to the > > IGF on a development agenda. > > > > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance > > > > The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be > > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > > organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the > > WSIS > > process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and > > assess, > > on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > > Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any > > follow-up > > discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate. The > > Internet > > Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity > > in this > > arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that > > implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross- > > cutting > > issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help kick-start that > > cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in > > Hyderabad > > concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for which > > progress in implementation can be most readily > > assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session > > could > > consider patterns of practice across Internet governance > > mechanisms, and > > identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices. > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:37 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30 > >> > >> Deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops, best practice > >> forums and open forums is 30 April 2008. Not many weeks away. Details > >> in the MAG meeting report > >> >> 28.02.2008.v2.pdf> > >> and most of the relevant information copied below. > >> > >> Issues the caucus recommended in contributions for the last > >> consultation have not all be included. It would not hurt to quickly > >> re-submit those comments (amended to take account of the MAG's > >> report). > >> > >> Again, if you organized a workshop in Rio and have not yet submitted > >> a report, please do so. (about 80 events in Rio and > >> not many > >> have submitted a report, which if anyone really cares about the IGF > >> producing outcomes, is a bit silly.) > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> Draft Programme Outline > >> > >> General programming principles: > >> * Two days with general themes and main sessions focused on specific > >> issues and not general overviews. > >> * Some workshops could be held on themes defined by the MAG (main > >> workshops), but organized by others who respond to a call for > >> proposals. > >> * Main workshops, which are linked to the main sessions and workshops > >> on the four Athens themes, are not to be held in parallel to main > >> sessions. > >> * Other workshops may be held in parallel to the main sessions, > >> depending on the quantity and quality of the proposals. > >> * All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be > >> asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event. > >> Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the > >> following year. > >> * Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report > >> for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.) > >> * No official meetings starting after 1800 hours. > >> * No official meetings during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 > >> hours. > >> * Further efforts will be made to enable remote participation > >> * Efforts will be made to publish the proceedings of the meeting also > >> in other formats. > >> > >> 3 December > >> Curtain raiser, tutorials, workshops Opening ceremony/Opening session > >> > >> 4 December > >> Theme: > >> Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion > >> (alternate title: Expanding the Internet) > >> 1100 - 1300: Low cost sustainable access > >> 1400 - 1600: Multilingualization > >> 1630 - 1830: Implications for development policy > >> > >> Host Country Reception > >> > >> 5 December > >> Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet) > >> 1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources > >> 1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance > >> 1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability > >> > >> 6 December > >> 0900 - 1100: Taking stock and the way forward > >> 1130 - 1300: Debate > >> 1400 - 1600: Emerging issues > >> 1630 - 1800: Closing Ceremony > >> > >> Notes from the discussion: > >> > >> The discussion on the two schedules and on possible topics took on > >> the character of a brain storming session that would provide a > >> starting point for discussion in the MAG and the wider IGF community. > >> > >> Some of the points that were brought out include: > >> * The planning for 2008 should take into account the Chairman's > >> Summary of the Rio meeting and look at the lessons learned and issues > >> raised in the previous meetings. > >> * Possible focused topics for "Low cost sustainable access" could > >> include the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost > >> sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and > >> India's success. > >> * The scope of "Managing the Internet" topic could focus on > >> international, national or local management of the Internet or the > >> relationship among the three levels. > >> * Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources" include: > >> * Enabling growth and innovation > >> * Capacity building > >> * The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet > >> * Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 > >> * Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6 > >> * Topics beyond IP addressing > >> * Possible Debate topics: > >> * IPR and innovation for development > >> * Privacy and protection of children > >> * Relationship between security and privacy > >> * The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an > >> evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate > >> > >> * Other comments: > >> * Freedom of Expression should have a dedicated session, though there > >> was a question whether the IGF was the appropriate forum to discuss > >> this issue. > >> * Should the topic on innovations be discussed under > >> * Emerging Issues > >> * Universalization of the Internet. > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Mar 30 12:26:02 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] The IG Jurisdictional Scheme Message-ID: This article caught my attention this morning, i'm refering in terms of International Organizations (CERN) and not directly related to the IG topic. the Article states: " ...Why should CERN, an organization of European nations based in Switzerland, even show up in a Hawaiian courtroom? ... ... James Gillies, head of communications at CERN, said the laboratory as of yet had no comment on the suit. “It’s hard to see how a district court in Hawaii has jurisdiction over an intergovernmental organization in Europe,” Mr. Gillies said. ..." This led me to consider the UN-&-ITC IG position in a simulare contest of Jurisdiction, ...“It’s hard to see how a district court in Hawaii has jurisdiction over an intergovernmental organization in Europe,”... My question to you is: 'After' the empowerment of the UN/ITC via the IGF is complete, what jurisdictional-gerrymandering scheme will settle out? (What will be? The IG Jurisdictional Scheme) -- Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More By DENNIS OVERBYE March 29, 2008 - New York Times Art. Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?em&ex=1207022400&en=fc4bb1d73347fe4e&ei=5087%0A Print: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?ei=5087&em=&en=fc4bb1d73347fe4e&ex=1207022400&pagewanted=print -- More fighting in Iraq. Somalia in chaos. People in this country can’t afford their mortgages and in some places now they can’t even afford rice. None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii turn out to be right. They think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce a black hole or something else that will spell the end of the Earth — and maybe the universe. Scientists say that is very unlikely — though they have done some checking just to make sure. The world’s physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding protons will recreate energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of nature. But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Although it sounds bizarre, the case touches on a serious issue that has bothered scholars and scientists in recent years — namely how to estimate the risk of new groundbreaking experiments and who gets to decide whether or not to go ahead. The lawsuit, filed March 21 in Federal District Court, in Honolulu, seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting CERN from proceeding with the accelerator until it has produced a safety report and an environmental assessment. It names the federal Department of Energy, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the National Science Foundation and CERN as defendants. According to a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is representing the Department of Energy, a scheduling meeting has been set for June 16. Why should CERN, an organization of European nations based in Switzerland, even show up in a Hawaiian courtroom? In an interview, Mr. Wagner said, “I don’t know if they’re going to show up.” CERN would have to voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction, he said, adding that he and Mr. Sancho could have sued in France or Switzerland, but to save expenses they had added CERN to the docket here. He claimed that a restraining order on Fermilab and the Energy Department, which helps to supply and maintain the accelerator’s massive superconducting magnets, would shut down the project anyway. James Gillies, head of communications at CERN, said the laboratory as of yet had no comment on the suit. “It’s hard to see how a district court in Hawaii has jurisdiction over an intergovernmental organization in Europe,” Mr. Gillies said. “There is nothing new to suggest that the L.H.C. is unsafe,” he said, adding that its safety had been confirmed by two reports, with a third on the way, and would be the subject of a discussion during an open house at the lab on April 6. “Scientifically, we’re not hiding away,” he said. But Mr. Wagner is not mollified. “They’ve got a lot of propaganda saying it’s safe,” he said in an interview, “but basically it’s propaganda.” In an e-mail message, Mr. Wagner called the CERN safety review “fundamentally flawed” and said it had been initiated too late. The review process violates the European Commission’s standards for adhering to the “Precautionary Principle,” he wrote, “and has not been done by ‘arms length’ scientists.” Physicists in and out of CERN say a variety of studies, including an official CERN report in 2003, have concluded there is no problem. But just to be sure, last year the anonymous Safety Assessment Group was set up to do the review again. “The possibility that a black hole eats up the Earth is too serious a threat to leave it as a matter of argument among crackpots,” said Michelangelo Mangano, a CERN theorist who said he was part of the group. The others prefer to remain anonymous, Mr. Mangano said, for various reasons. Their report was due in January. This is not the first time around for Mr. Wagner. He filed similar suits in 1999 and 2000 to prevent the Brookhaven National Laboratory from operating the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That suit was dismissed in 2001. The collider, which smashes together gold ions in the hopes of creating what is called a “quark-gluon plasma,” has been operating without incident since 2000. Mr. Wagner, who lives on the Big Island of Hawaii, studied physics and did cosmic ray research at the University of California, Berkeley, and received a doctorate in law from what is now known as the University of Northern California in Sacramento. He subsequently worked as a radiation safety officer for the Veterans Administration. Mr. Sancho, who describes himself as an author and researcher on time theory, lives in Spain, probably in Barcelona, Mr. Wagner said. Doomsday fears have a long, if not distinguished, pedigree in the history of physics. At Los Alamos before the first nuclear bomb was tested, Emil Konopinski was given the job of calculating whether or not the explosion would set the atmosphere on fire. The Large Hadron Collider is designed to fire up protons to energies of seven trillion electron volts before banging them together. Nothing, indeed, will happen in the CERN collider that does not happen 100,000 times a day from cosmic rays in the atmosphere, said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a particle theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. What is different, physicists admit, is that the fragments from cosmic rays will go shooting harmlessly through the Earth at nearly the speed of light, but anything created when the beams meet head-on in the collider will be born at rest relative to the laboratory and so will stick around and thus could create havoc. The new worries are about black holes, which, according to some variants of string theory, could appear at the collider. That possibility, though a long shot, has been widely ballyhooed in many papers and popular articles in the last few years, but would they be dangerous? According to a paper by the cosmologist Stephen Hawking in 1974, they would rapidly evaporate in a poof of radiation and elementary particles, and thus pose no threat. No one, though, has seen a black hole evaporate. As a result, Mr. Wagner and Mr. Sancho contend in their complaint, black holes could really be stable, and a micro black hole created by the collider could grow, eventually swallowing the Earth. But William Unruh, of the University of British Columbia, whose paper exploring the limits of Dr. Hawking’s radiation process was referenced on Mr. Wagner’s Web site, said they had missed his point. “Maybe physics really is so weird as to not have black holes evaporate,” he said. “But it would really, really have to be weird.” Lisa Randall, a Harvard physicist whose work helped fuel the speculation about black holes at the collider, pointed out in a paper last year that black holes would probably not be produced at the collider after all, although other effects of so-called quantum gravity might appear. As part of the safety assessment report, Dr. Mangano and Steve Giddings of the University of California, Santa Barbara, have been working intensely for the last few months on a paper exploring all the possibilities of these fearsome black holes. They think there are no problems but are reluctant to talk about their findings until they have been peer reviewed, Dr. Mangano said. Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.” -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 Sun Mar 30 12:35:10 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:05:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] The IG Jurisdictional Scheme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a101c89284$072eb8e0$158c2aa0$@net> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > My question to you is: 'After' the empowerment of the UN/ITC via the > IGF is complete, what jurisdictional-gerrymandering scheme will settle out? > (What will be? The IG Jurisdictional Scheme) The principle of sovereignty and physical jurisdiction predates the Internet. And predates the telephone. The same thing can be said of frivolous lawsuits and of people with crackpot scientific theories. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 30 13:42:06 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:12:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <004701c891d7$2f74d080$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <20080330174228.B0367A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> The following names got drawn for the nomcom. 13 Gurumurthy K 10 Ian Peter 5 Robert Guerra 24 Rudi Rusdiah 20 Hakikur Rahman Happy working for all those who will take up the nomcom responsibility. Tomorrow, ie 31st is the day for any challenges to this nomcom process, and its outcome. The nomcom starts functioning on the 1st and nominations also open on the 1st April. Meanwhile, for some reasons, we did/could not have a non-voting chair for the nomcom before the random selection. I will confer with the nomcom and we will come up with an arrangement of a voting chair from among the 5 members - with responsibility of liaison with co-coordinators and the IGC, conducting the internal nomcom process and sharing its results. The rest of the schedule is as follows Nomination close - April 8th Nomcom confers between 9th and 16th. Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th So, two things are important for the next week or so, till the 8th, .are; (1) Nominations - including self nominations - are invited for choosing IGC nominees for the MAG. (2) We need to discuss the criteria that the nomcom should use in choosing the nominees list. It is good to give the nomcom some relatively clear directions in this matter. If we give our suggestions and discuss them in the time up till the 8th, the nomcom will be able to pick up the 'sense' of the group's discussions, and incorporate them in their selection process. This may include the number of nominees that should be selected, the kind of rotation that is desired, various kinds of balance etc. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 30 14:17:14 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:47:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations Message-ID: <20080330181729.CF679E0519@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All Please submit nominations - including self-nominations - for choosing IGC recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the caucus at different times. 1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her candidature. 2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena. 3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. 4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about how they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in advocating and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. The above is abstracted from some discussions that took place on this list a few days back. Any comments on these may be given by tomorrow, before the nominations begin to be accepted. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 30 14:35:41 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:35:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080330174228.B0367A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080330174228.B0367A6C22@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47EFDD7D.8080802@rits.org.br> Looks good! frt rgds --c.a. Parminder wrote: > The following names got drawn for the nomcom. > > > > 13 Gurumurthy K > > 10 Ian Peter > > 5 Robert Guerra > > 24 Rudi Rusdiah > > 20 Hakikur Rahman > > > > > > Happy working for all those who will take up the nomcom responsibility. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 30 14:38:00 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:38:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080330181729.CF679E0519@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080330181729.CF679E0519@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <47EFDE08.5070304@rits.org.br> Parm, as said in an earlier msg, the LA&C caucus will send its list to the NomCom as soon as we finish our online voting and go through a reasonable period of a few days for comments, appeals etc. --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > Please submit nominations - including self-nominations - for choosing IGC > recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may not be IGC > members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and broadly be > in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the > caucus at different times. > > > > 1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to be > on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her candidature. > > > > 2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with > some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the IG > and information society arena. > > > > 3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person > will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. > > > > 4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about how > they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in advocating > and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions. Their level and > manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also > be mentioned. > > > > Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the MAG > one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including and > especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC > informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ > push their positions in the MAG. > > > > The above is abstracted from some discussions that took place on this list a > few days back. Any comments on these may be given by tomorrow, before the > nominations begin to be accepted. > > > > Parminder > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 30 14:46:34 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:46:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] The IG Jurisdictional Scheme In-Reply-To: <00a101c89284$072eb8e0$158c2aa0$@net> References: <00a101c89284$072eb8e0$158c2aa0$@net> Message-ID: <47EFE00A.8010806@rits.org.br> Well, fine, but I've got a bit worried anyway. I never before imagined I would end swallowed by a man-made black hole! It ought to be painless, though. --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > >> My question to you is: 'After' the empowerment of the UN/ITC via the >> IGF is complete, what jurisdictional-gerrymandering scheme will settle out? >> (What will be? The IG Jurisdictional Scheme) > > The principle of sovereignty and physical jurisdiction predates the Internet. And predates the telephone. > > The same thing can be said of frivolous lawsuits and of people with crackpot scientific theories. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 30 20:48:26 2008 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:48:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] The IG Jurisdictional Scheme In-Reply-To: <47EFE00A.8010806@rits.org.br> References: <00a101c89284$072eb8e0$158c2aa0$@net> <47EFE00A.8010806@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080331004826.GA15305@hserus.net> Carlos Afonso [30/03/08 15:46 -0300]: > Well, fine, but I've got a bit worried anyway. I never before imagined I > would end swallowed by a man-made black hole! It ought to be painless, > though. If it hurts, you can tell us all about it .. possibly using ipv15 and intergalactic internet, from whatever alternate dimension you get sucked into. Oh wait, that's a wormhole, not a blackhole, blackholes simply compress you into smaller than a pinpoint. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Mar 30 21:03:44 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:03:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] The IG Jurisdictional Scheme In-Reply-To: <20080331004826.GA15305@hserus.net> References: <00a101c89284$072eb8e0$158c2aa0$@net> <47EFE00A.8010806@rits.org.br> <20080331004826.GA15305@hserus.net> Message-ID: <47F03870.3060208@rits.org.br> This is the fun part -- depending on the result, one will never be able to report on it. :) --c.a. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Carlos Afonso [30/03/08 15:46 -0300]: >> Well, fine, but I've got a bit worried anyway. I never before imagined >> I would end swallowed by a man-made black hole! It ought to be >> painless, though. > > If it hurts, you can tell us all about it .. possibly using ipv15 and > intergalactic internet, from whatever alternate dimension you get sucked > into. Oh wait, that's a wormhole, not a blackhole, blackholes simply > compress you into smaller than a pinpoint. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mar 31 00:42:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:12:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <47EFDE08.5070304@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20080331044312.C1DEEA6C5F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Sure, Carlos. I request members to discuss criteria for selecting IGC nominees. It will help the nomcom to decide things in a manner that represent the widest possible consensus among the group. However no formal set of criteria based on the discussions will be communicated to the nomcom. They will be expected to pick up the sense of the discussions and take decisions as per their best judgment if it. Even if you have earlier spoken about what you see as the right criteria for IGC nominees - and nomcom will go through those exchanges - it is good if you can re-state them. Issues like what numbers of nominees to be sent to the IGF secretariat are importat, what kind of rotation, what balance etc. I have also requested the nomcom members to direct issues that they will like clearer directions on to the list in the next week or so. We can hold discussion around their posers as well. Please also state if you find the format of filing nominations fine. We should also send out a call to all CS groups/ lists we know that IGC will be forwarding names for new CS nominees on the MAG, and anyone may nominate anyone including herself. Such outreach will improve the legitimacy of the process. I request individual members to take up this responsibility with respect to the CS groups thy may be in touch with. And of course pl do send in your own nominations to Vittorio and me. The last date is the 8th. Thanks. Parminder (PS: I will have little or no connectivity in the next 3 days, but will try to get a telephonic update of important email from my office. Thanks) > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:08 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations > > Parm, as said in an earlier msg, the LA&C caucus will send its list to > the NomCom as soon as we finish our online voting and go through a > reasonable period of a few days for comments, appeals etc. > > --c.a. > > Parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > > > > > > > Please submit nominations - including self-nominations - for choosing > IGC > > recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may not be > IGC > > members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and broadly > be > > in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the > > caucus at different times. > > > > > > > > 1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to be > > on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her > candidature. > > > > > > > > 2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with > > some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the > IG > > and information society arena. > > > > > > > > 3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person > > will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. > > > > > > > > 4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about how > > they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in > advocating > > and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions. Their level and > > manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may > also > > be mentioned. > > > > > > > > Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the > MAG > > one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including > and > > especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC > > informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as > present/ > > push their positions in the MAG. > > > > > > > > The above is abstracted from some discussions that took place on this > list a > > few days back. Any comments on these may be given by tomorrow, before > the > > nominations begin to be accepted. > > > > > > > > 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Mar 31 09:04:12 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:04:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations In-Reply-To: <20080331044324.D30822400172@mx.rits.org.br> References: <20080331044324.D30822400172@mx.rits.org.br> Message-ID: <47F0E14C.6040104@rits.org.br> OK, Parm. I recognize the huge challenge the NomCom will face: to create a consensus list of CS indications "of the entire planet" which will be submitted to a decision-making process beyond our say. I think we should be prepared to face the hard facts: the SG will decide on the basis of the stronger political influences within the UN decision-making processes. These are simply not us. *Or*, the UN is giving such a low priority to this (as the SG has demonstrated since he became so -- he was in Brazil during IGF II and ignored the event, and let the MAG and secretariat suffer in a limbo throughout 2007) that he will let whatever the IGF secretariat proposes go through. This would improve our chances, I think. frt rgds --c.a. Parminder wrote: > > Sure, Carlos. > > I request members to discuss criteria for selecting IGC nominees. It will > help the nomcom to decide things in a manner that represent the widest > possible consensus among the group. However no formal set of criteria based > on the discussions will be communicated to the nomcom. They will be expected > to pick up the sense of the discussions and take decisions as per their best > judgment if it. > > Even if you have earlier spoken about what you see as the right criteria for > IGC nominees - and nomcom will go through those exchanges - it is good if > you can re-state them. > > Issues like what numbers of nominees to be sent to the IGF secretariat are > importat, what kind of rotation, what balance etc. > > I have also requested the nomcom members to direct issues that they will > like clearer directions on to the list in the next week or so. We can hold > discussion around their posers as well. > > Please also state if you find the format of filing nominations fine. > > We should also send out a call to all CS groups/ lists we know that IGC will > be forwarding names for new CS nominees on the MAG, and anyone may nominate > anyone including herself. Such outreach will improve the legitimacy of the > process. I request individual members to take up this responsibility with > respect to the CS groups thy may be in touch with. > > And of course pl do send in your own nominations to Vittorio and me. The > last date is the 8th. > > Thanks. > > Parminder > > (PS: I will have little or no connectivity in the next 3 days, but will try > to get a telephonic update of important email from my office. Thanks) > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations >> >> Parm, as said in an earlier msg, the LA&C caucus will send its list to >> the NomCom as soon as we finish our online voting and go through a >> reasonable period of a few days for comments, appeals etc. >> >> --c.a. >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>> Please submit nominations - including self-nominations - for choosing >> IGC >>> recommendations for the MAG. The recommended persons may or may not be >> IGC >>> members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and broadly >> be >>> in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the >>> caucus at different times. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person's consent to be >>> on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC's endorsement for her >> candidature. >>> >>> >>> 2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with >>> some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the >> IG >>> and information society arena. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person >>> will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about how >>> they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in >> advocating >>> and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC's positions. Their level and >>> manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may >> also >>> be mentioned. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the >> MAG >>> one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including >> and >>> especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC >>> informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as >> present/ >>> push their positions in the MAG. >>> >>> >>> >>> The above is abstracted from some discussions that took place on this >> list a >>> few days back. Any comments on these may be given by tomorrow, before >> the >>> nominations begin to be accepted. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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