From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat May 31 17:53:14 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 00:53:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <4841b690.15528c0a.0965.24eaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <f65fb55e0805311031i7130c872j7c736b00a3379c87@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4841b690.15528c0a.0965.24eaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805311453q3316b0b5heb2d8c757669a731@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>

>> IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal.
>
> Thanks for supporting the relevance of signing the IGC charter. However, we
> do nominate CS persons who are not IGC members, so this cannot be a
> condition.

I am arguing for those members, current and future who will be
unfairly excluded.  I didn't mean to imply that ONLY those that sign
the charter can represent IGC.   But now that I think about it, it's
not a bad idea.

>
> I am not sure what aspect of the charter you have repeated referred to as
> violated in nomcom's decision...
>

"All members are equal and have the same rights and duties."

Except those of course who work for "Internet Governance
organizations" of course, as they are relegated to the back of the
bus.

> I must also draw your attention to the fact that the preambular para of the
> charter
>
> "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual
> and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of
> the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public
> interest objectives in Internet governance policy making."
>

And you think that "Internet Governance organizations" DON'T promote
global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy
making.

Does the slogan "the Internet is for Everyone" ring a bell?

> does have important significance in deriving the meaning of CS as used by
> us,

What is the significance exactly?


if it is not otherwise clear (to a sufficient level of 'working
> clarity'). There was some context in which the CS term has been used in the
> WSIS,

Everyone who was not PS or govt presumably.

and the way the CS engaged with WSIS used it. (It is also significant
> to note that ICANN, RIRs etc were registered as private sector and not CS in
> the WSIS process.  Apparently, they didnt think they were CS, so why be more
> loyal than the king).

Maybe they got chased away by unfriendly attitudes, I don't know, and
I don't speak for them.  I speak for myself, and I say it is clear to
me that they are CS, however much you don't like this notion.


> So when the charter keeps mentioning the term 'civil society' everywhere, it
> is operating within some understanding of the term within which the
> membership para you quote is situated.

Maybe you can share this understanding with us then.  The LSE
definition is good enough for me.

> All the paras before the membership paras clearly keep stating that it is a
> civil society group, which will mean with civil society persons'
> membership....

and they are CS organizations, just as much as your org is CS.  So
their staff are CS persons.

>
> And the objective 8 refers to 'collaboration with other stakeholders' which
> clearly means (if there could at all be any doubt otherwise, which I don't
> think there is the least scope for)  that there are other stakeholders who
> are not CS (this is getting too much really even to try and argue, I really
> think the distinction is quite clear, and I just cant understand what is
> being meant really by saying there may be no distinction between CS,
> private/ business sector and government sector).....
>

Yes, there are other stakeholders, but if they sign the charter, they
are CS, even if they work for the Rhino Horn Importers Association.

I agree with Bill when he said "When did the caucus become the
Spartacus Youth League, I missed it..."

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat May 31 18:16:58 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 01:16:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080531203235.0575967873@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080531173412.GA5525@hserus.net>
	 <20080531203235.0575967873@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805311516s3fc2d6c2y8be474b2493b943@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

<snip>
>combined with the precedent

a completely invented precedent BTW.

>already established within CS Caucus to not accept >nominations from full time employees of existing Internet >governance organizations in arriving at our decision."
>
> suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself

Exactly, they satisfied THEMSELVES, and didn't bring this contentious
issue to the caucus as suggested by rule #5.

, and decided, that certain
> structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest.
>

potential conflict of interest, which as has been noted, is the same
potential conflict of interest that all full time employees of CS orgs
carry.

The part that really fires me up is the "if a person is a fulltime
employee of IG organization then though they may have progressive
views, they can not be said to be having CS credentials."

This is NOT the caucus position, (nor will it ever be if I have
anything to say about it).  This is your position, (and Guru's).

And you wonder why these IG orgs identified with PS in WSIS? Maybe
it's because they'd rather have a nice hug rather than a kick in the
ass.  I know which I prefer!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sat May 31 20:52:21 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 02:52:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Invitation - GigaNet Workshop on Global Internet
 Governance - Paris, 23 Juin 2008
Message-ID: <D1E1EF09-3A2C-466D-9BA0-B944F7F9E91B@ras.eu.org>

Dear all,

This invitation will probably be of interest to subscribers to these  
lists.
Best regards,
Meryem Marzouki
:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in  
Construction
A GigaNet workshop, organized in cooperation with GDR TICS and DEL  
Networks
Paris, France - 23 June 2008 - 08:30-13:30
University Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle – Institut du Monde Anglophone

Invitation to participate

The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) will hold  
its first workshop on "Global Internet Governance: An  
Interdisciplinary Field in Construction", in Paris, France, on Monday  
23 June 2003, 08:30-13:30. French co-organizers and sponsors are: GDR- 
CNRS TICS, DEL-CNRS network, Sciences Po, U. Paris 3 Sorbonne  
Nouvelle, U. Pierre et Marie Curie, and LIP6 Laboratory.

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 expected to contribute  
to this reflexive exercise, with the long-term objective of  
collectively building this interdisciplinary research field.

Rather than featuring academic paper presentations, the workshop aims  
at providing a survey of current academic activities in the field of  
global Internet governance. The workshop is mainly organized around 3  
roundtables, fostering lively and fruitful discussions. Panelists  
selected among the authors of submitted contributions will discuss  
global Internet governance research activities dealing with: models,  
players and democratic principles; regulation policies and regulatory  
issues; and regional perspectives and sociocultural issues.

Attendance at the workshop is free and open to all interested  
parties, but registration is required.

Workshop agenda and detailed program, registration form, contribution  
abstracts, as well as other practical information, are available at  
the workshop website:  http://tinyurl.com/2nww9t.

Contact:
Meryem Marzouki, Workshop Chair
LIP6-UPMC-CNRS, France (Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr)
Workshop website: http://tinyurl.com/2nww9t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 31 21:10:06 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:10:06 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
Message-ID: <20080601011006.GA13899@hserus.net>

Parminder [31/05/08 22:32 +0200]:
>
>> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred
>
>This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the'

This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes.

>> 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of interest
>
>The part of nomcom statement 
>"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations - Another matter
>that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time employees of

That is exactly what we take issue with. The nomcom exceeded its mandate,
and ignored precedent, by arbitrarily shutting out this section of
candidates.

It also introduced a strong element of bias into the process. Yes, there
are similarly chartered organizations to the RIRs that might align much
better with intl org rather than cs, but the RIRs themselves are much
closer to CS than those, and they are also eager to work with CS. Shutting
them out and maintaining a "us versus them" mentality rather than an open
mind is definitely not appropriate.

>suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself, and decided, that certain
>structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest. 

Indeed, and who then authorized the nomcomm to make this unilateral
decision without coming back to the caucus? Rule 5 as McTim points out?

	suresh
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 31 21:18:22 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:18:22 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
Message-ID: <20080601011822.GB13899@hserus.net>

Parminder [31/05/08 22:35 +0200]:
>> IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal.
>
>Thanks for supporting the relevance of signing the IGC charter. However, we
>do nominate CS persons who are not IGC members, so this cannot be a
>condition. 

In which case, if they declare support for the charter but have not yet
signed it, they're equal - especially if they sign the charter and join
this caucus.

>WSIS, and the way the CS engaged with WSIS used it. (It is also significant
>to note that ICANN, RIRs etc were registered as private sector and not CS in
>the WSIS process.  Apparently, they didnt think they were CS, so why be more
>loyal than the king).

Cant comment for either of the two, but if a tiny subsection of a splinter
group of CS keeps insisting they are not CS, and makes loud noises about
it, what else do you expect?

>And the objective 8 refers to 'collaboration with other stakeholders' which
>clearly means (if there could at all be any doubt otherwise, which I don't
>think there is the least scope for)  that there are other stakeholders who

The active hostility towards those groups tends to make me believe the
focus is more on control than on collaboration. But that's entirely another
story.

>are not CS (this is getting too much really even to try and argue, I really
>think the distinction is quite clear, and I just cant understand what is
>being meant really by saying there may be no distinction between CS,
>private/ business sector and government sector).....

You are not arguing these effectively, and keep making the same points -
not very convincing ones - over and over again. So, fine, you are not able
to understand (or is the word actually "accept") this viewpoint. You will
see that various others - see Avri and Jeanette's emails in this thread -
seem to understand these points.  

And frankly, I could care less if you dont understand them, but how or why
did this level of lack of understanding and bias seep into the nomcom and
affect its decision making process?

	suresh
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 31 21:31:09 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:31:09 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <48418F4F.7070401@wzb.eu>
References: <20080531172437.794A667989@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48418F4F.7070401@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20080601013109.GC13899@hserus.net>

Jeanette, thank you for making this point.

The two corollaries to this that I'd submit are that

Corrollary 1 -

CS is traditionally a very diverse group and its value lies in the
diversity of its opinions. 

There is, still, a certain shared set of believes, a value system, that
more accurately defines CS than the sweeping "Government, Industry and
whatever's left" old fashioned 3 stakeholder model.  CS cuts across these
stakeholder communities just as much as the technical community does. 

I'm sure you've read this book - Civil Society and Government, ed Nancy
Rosenblum and Robert Post (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7214.html) -
parts of it are available on books.google.com and show just how diverse
opinion is on this subject.

Corollary 2 -

The nomcomm volunteered to pick the right candidate(s) to represent CS
views.  I respect the amount of time, and the commitment to this cause,
that their volunteering shows. What I dont respect at all is an arbitrary
decision of excluding an entire class on the grounds that they are not CS
(and on which opinion clearly differs even within this caucus), and then
not coming back to the caucus for consensus on this decision.

If this exclusion were on the basis of (say) disability, arguing that the
strenuous routine of conference calls and travels would mean that a
disabled person wouldnt be able to effectively represent CS, the caucus
would have been in an uproar by now.

[yes i realize its a slippery slope argument, and I for one consider
slippery slope a fallacy, but it is a favorite style of argument among some
CS groups, and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I guess]

	suresh

Jeanette Hofmann [31/05/08 18:47 +0100]:
> Having followed this discussion now for I don't know how long, my  
> personal conclusion is that exclusions based on formal stakeholder  
> categories is neither fair nor very effective. We might exclude people  
> we would be happy to nominate or we might nominate people as CS although  
> they are only partly CS because they are also something else (run a  
> company, work for a government, an ISP, or whatever). It seems thus not  
> easy to apply such a general rule in a consistent and fair way.
>
> If we abolish this rule, however, we increase the burden of the nomcom  
> as it will be up to the nomcom to decide whether or not somebody  
> actually embodies CS spirit, despite any affiliations. This is not easy  
> to do. Judging from past nomination results, civil society reps on the  
> MAG form a rather diverse group - much more diverse than the reps from  
> the Internet industry including ICANN and the technical community, and  
> in my view too diverse to have much of an impact as a stakeholder group.
>
> Nonetheless, I would prefer to delegate nomination related decisions to  
> a nomcom and dispose of any formal exclusions. If this requires a change  
> of our charter I support such a change.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>>>> If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
>>>> basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.
>>> That's my point. Excluding them as a class is just not on. Picking
>>> specific
>>> examples like Bertrand, or Stefano, or the Nigerian IT secretary, or
>>> whoever
>>> else isn't a very valid reason for such exclusion.
>>>
>>> 	srs
>>
>> Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
>> have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
>> dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG, and
>> for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider any
>> such person as CS. 
>>
>>
>> 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

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian | suresh at hserus.net | gpg EDEDEFB9
email sturmbahnfuehrer | lower middle class unix sysadmin
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May  1 08:00:26 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 08:00:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
Message-ID: <s81978c3.052@gwia203.syr.edu>

I also don't see the point of a redo.

We get to do the whole thing over again next year right?

Maybe by then the standards of this all-volunteer global process will meet with everyone's approval (just kidding).

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> avri at psg.com 04/30/08 12:52 PM >>>
Hi,

I don't think so.

I think it has to do with the time it took to get the response and the  
announcement from UN headquarters and a compromise between giving a  
month a making sure that the list of candidates is obtained in time  
for there to be a new MAG in enough time before the September meeting.

To paraphrase an old expression: I do not think that one should  
attribute to "bloody (internecine and otherwise) struggles going on  
behind curtains" what can better be explained by bureaucracy.

I think it is good that you have your names in early, the earlier the  
better.

a.



On 30 Apr 2008, at 12:21, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> The secretariat's announcement seems to be an indication of the  
> bloody (internecine and otherwise) struggles going on behind  
> curtains to dispute the very few places in the MAG. As a person who  
> has participated in this process formally or informally since the  
> beginning of the WSIS process in general and the WGIG in particular,  
> I think aloud: is it really worth it beyond the personal imagery and  
> added CV lines?
>
> In any case, our region has done its job as much as it could,  
> indicating five names. Let us see what the outcome of this imbroglio  
> will be...
>
> --c.a.
>
> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Parminder, all,
>> Why hurry?
>> Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the  
>> secretariat is going to announce shortly a call for candidates for  
>> the MAG in conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of  
>> one month should be given between the official call and the  
>> response to call, leaving a decent time for various constituencies  
>> to propose  their slate of candidates."
>> Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process,  
>> including with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the  
>> opportunity to allow ourselves some more time. I don't understand  
>> why we shouldn't use this opportunity.
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>> Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at  
>>> this
>>> point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
>>>
>>> Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom  
>>> process to a
>>> closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of  
>>> tomorrow, the
>>> 1st.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
>>>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the  
>>>> nomcom to
>>>> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well,  
>>>> is far
>>>> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>>>>
>>>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
>>>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and  
>>>> mailing
>>>> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
>>>> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
>>>> effort needed.
>>>>
>>>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
>>>> complete remaining tasks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Robert Guerra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu May  1 23:07:36 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 20:07:36 -0700
Subject: [governance] Back in the USSR: Soviet Internet domain name resists
 deat
Message-ID: <01f301c8ac01$ad573ee0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080419/soviet_union_online.html?.v=1

Back in the USSR: Soviet Internet domain name resists death
Saturday April 19, 2:20 am ET 
By Mansur Mirovalev, Associated Press Writer  
Rescued from digital doom, Soviet Union's Internet domain name evokes
nostalgia, controversy 


MOSCOW (AP) -- The Soviet Union may be in the dustbin of history, but
there's one place the socialist utopia lives on: cyberspace.
Sixteen years after the superpower's collapse, Web sites ending in the
Soviet ".su" domain name have been rising -- registrations increased 45
percent this year alone. Bloggers, entrepreneurs and die-hard communists are
all part of a small but growing online community resisting repeated efforts
to extinguish the online Soviet outpost.

Russian nostalgia for the Soviet empire is part of the story. Nashi, or
"Ours," is a pro-Kremlin youth group that gained notoriety for raucous
protests against Kremlin critics. The group loyally praises President
Vladimir Putin at "nashi.su," though it denies its choice of the ".su"
domain was meant to send a political message.

Many Web entrepreneurs also see potential profits in the domain, grabbing
instantly recognizable names already claimed in other, better known domains.

A small Moscow car repair shop that specializes in Ford vehicles boasts a
home page at "ford.su," while the owner of "apple.su" is a Muscovite who
said he is ready to swap it for a new laptop computer -- and not necessarily
a Mac from Apple Inc.

Vladimir Khramov, a network administrator from Moscow, said he bought
"microsoft.su" last year simply to acquire an easy-to-remember ending for
his e-mail address.

While Khramov insists he "did not buy it for reselling," others are out to
make a quick ruble. Yan Balayan registered a number of high-profile
addresses, including "ussr.su," "stalin.su" and "kgb.su" -- he's asking for
$30,000 each, but stands ready to haggle.

With few exceptions -- namely, the tech-savvy Baltic state of Estonia --
Internet penetration is relatively low in the former Soviet republics.
Russia's Public Opinion Foundation says that only 27 percent of Russian
adults use the Internet -- and only about 12 percent of the adults on any
given day.

Yet many Internet entrepreneurs are passionate about the ".su" domain, even
as others are scornful of it as a relic of the past, saying it doesn't
deserve the same status as ".ru" for Russia, ".uk" for the United Kingdom or
".fr" for France.

"They are selling tickets to a drowning ship," said Anton Nosik, a veteran
Web journalist and founder of several successful online projects. "Their
message is to losers and latecomers."

What's next? Domain names for the Roman Empire or Ancient Greece?

Country-code domains, derived from a list kept by the International
Organization for Standardization, typically disappear when a country ceases
to exist or changes its name. Both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia lost their
domain names after they broke up into smaller nations. So did Zaire after it
became the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Internet's key oversight agency, the Marina del Rey, Calif.-based
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and its predecessors
have made several efforts since the 1990s to eliminate the ".su" address.

All have failed.

In late 2006, ICANN even sought advice from the community on how best to
revoke outdated suffixes. Yet the resistance continued, and the phase-out
seems to be in a stalemate. The domain continues to work normally, but
listed in records as "being phased out."

"There are no technical issues," said John Crain, ICANN's chief technical
officer. "It all comes down to politics."

The ".su" domain dates back to September 1990, a little more than a year
before the Soviet collapse. Russia was given the ".ru" domain name in 1994.
Other former Soviet republics were also assigned codes.

But the owners of ".su" sites stubbornly resisted switching on commercial,
political and patriotic grounds. Some even accused the White House of
scheming to eliminate the last remnants of its Cold War rival.

As a compromise, the Russian organization responsible for registering new
domain names under ".su" agreed to stop issuing new ones, while existing
".su" addresses were allowed to continue for the time being.

A loophole allowed existing ".su" addresses like "lenin.su" to assign
subdomains such as "vladimir.lenin.su." As a result, the online population
at ".su" kept growing throughout the 1990s -- although not nearly as fast as
".ru."

Then, in 2001, in response to pressure from users eager for freer access,
registration in ".su" was opened to everyone everywhere.

The price was kept artificially high -- $120 per name, six times the price
for ".ru" -- to limit the number of new users and prevent entrepreneurs from
grabbing names for resale in a practice called cybersquatting, said Andrey
Vorobyev, spokesman for RU-Center, the body authorized to register domain
names.

But in January, RU-Center dropped the price for ".su" to $25 in a bid to
boost the domain's worldwide popularity.

The attractive new price sparked a registration rush that bumped up the
number of ".su" sites to 45,000 today, more than quadruple the 11,000
registered as of late 2006. The demand shows no signs of relenting -- the
jump from 31,000 in January represents a 45 percent rise.

But by domain name standards, the number of ".su" registrations is still
very small. Russia's ".ru," for instance, has more than 1 million names.
Germany's ".de" has 12 million, and the global ".com" has about 75 million.

Champions of the online Soviet domain say there is still plenty of room for
growth.

Some envisage the ".su" domain as a virtual venue for those who fondly
recall the old Soviet Union as a place where Russian, the lingua franca of
the Soviet empire, knit together a host of Asian and European ethnic groups
and cultures.

And by late April, the ".su" domain plans to start allowing names in
Russian; currently such names are limited to English letters, numerals and
the hyphen.

Associated Press Writer David Nowak in Moscow contributed to this story

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  1 23:37:23 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 12:37:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] Back in the USSR: Soviet Internet domain name
In-Reply-To: <01f301c8ac01$ad573ee0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <01f301c8ac01$ad573ee0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <p06240806c4403a23ef63@[192.168.1.193]>

very disappointing, couple of weeks ago some 
trademark protection outfit grabbed aboynamed 
(a-boy-named.su is available as is peggy... )

Adam




>http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080419/soviet_union_online.html?.v=1
>
>Back in the USSR: Soviet Internet domain name resists death
>Saturday April 19, 2:20 am ET
>By Mansur Mirovalev, Associated Press Writer 
>Rescued from digital doom, Soviet Union's Internet domain name evokes
>nostalgia, controversy
>
>
>MOSCOW (AP) -- The Soviet Union may be in the dustbin of history, but
>there's one place the socialist utopia lives on: cyberspace.
>Sixteen years after the superpower's collapse, Web sites ending in the
>Soviet ".su" domain name have been rising -- registrations increased 45
>percent this year alone. Bloggers, entrepreneurs and die-hard communists are
>all part of a small but growing online community resisting repeated efforts
>to extinguish the online Soviet outpost.
>
>Russian nostalgia for the Soviet empire is part of the story. Nashi, or
>"Ours," is a pro-Kremlin youth group that gained notoriety for raucous
>protests against Kremlin critics. The group loyally praises President
>Vladimir Putin at "nashi.su," though it denies its choice of the ".su"
>domain was meant to send a political message.
>
>Many Web entrepreneurs also see potential profits in the domain, grabbing
>instantly recognizable names already claimed in other, better known domains.
>
>A small Moscow car repair shop that specializes in Ford vehicles boasts a
>home page at "ford.su," while the owner of "apple.su" is a Muscovite who
>said he is ready to swap it for a new laptop computer -- and not necessarily
>a Mac from Apple Inc.
>
>Vladimir Khramov, a network administrator from Moscow, said he bought
>"microsoft.su" last year simply to acquire an easy-to-remember ending for
>his e-mail address.
>
>While Khramov insists he "did not buy it for reselling," others are out to
>make a quick ruble. Yan Balayan registered a number of high-profile
>addresses, including "ussr.su," "stalin.su" and "kgb.su" -- he's asking for
>$30,000 each, but stands ready to haggle.
>
>With few exceptions -- namely, the tech-savvy Baltic state of Estonia --
>Internet penetration is relatively low in the former Soviet republics.
>Russia's Public Opinion Foundation says that only 27 percent of Russian
>adults use the Internet -- and only about 12 percent of the adults on any
>given day.
>
>Yet many Internet entrepreneurs are passionate about the ".su" domain, even
>as others are scornful of it as a relic of the past, saying it doesn't
>deserve the same status as ".ru" for Russia, ".uk" for the United Kingdom or
>".fr" for France.
>
>"They are selling tickets to a drowning ship," said Anton Nosik, a veteran
>Web journalist and founder of several successful online projects. "Their
>message is to losers and latecomers."
>
>What's next? Domain names for the Roman Empire or Ancient Greece?
>
>Country-code domains, derived from a list kept by the International
>Organization for Standardization, typically disappear when a country ceases
>to exist or changes its name. Both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia lost their
>domain names after they broke up into smaller nations. So did Zaire after it
>became the Democratic Republic of Congo.
>
>The Internet's key oversight agency, the Marina del Rey, Calif.-based
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and its predecessors
>have made several efforts since the 1990s to eliminate the ".su" address.
>
>All have failed.
>
>In late 2006, ICANN even sought advice from the community on how best to
>revoke outdated suffixes. Yet the resistance continued, and the phase-out
>seems to be in a stalemate. The domain continues to work normally, but
>listed in records as "being phased out."
>
>"There are no technical issues," said John Crain, ICANN's chief technical
>officer. "It all comes down to politics."
>
>The ".su" domain dates back to September 1990, a little more than a year
>before the Soviet collapse. Russia was given the ".ru" domain name in 1994.
>Other former Soviet republics were also assigned codes.
>
>But the owners of ".su" sites stubbornly resisted switching on commercial,
>political and patriotic grounds. Some even accused the White House of
>scheming to eliminate the last remnants of its Cold War rival.
>
>As a compromise, the Russian organization responsible for registering new
>domain names under ".su" agreed to stop issuing new ones, while existing
>".su" addresses were allowed to continue for the time being.
>
>A loophole allowed existing ".su" addresses like "lenin.su" to assign
>subdomains such as "vladimir.lenin.su." As a result, the online population
>at ".su" kept growing throughout the 1990s -- although not nearly as fast as
>".ru."
>
>Then, in 2001, in response to pressure from users eager for freer access,
>registration in ".su" was opened to everyone everywhere.
>
>The price was kept artificially high -- $120 per name, six times the price
>for ".ru" -- to limit the number of new users and prevent entrepreneurs from
>grabbing names for resale in a practice called cybersquatting, said Andrey
>Vorobyev, spokesman for RU-Center, the body authorized to register domain
>names.
>
>But in January, RU-Center dropped the price for ".su" to $25 in a bid to
>boost the domain's worldwide popularity.
>
>The attractive new price sparked a registration rush that bumped up the
>number of ".su" sites to 45,000 today, more than quadruple the 11,000
>registered as of late 2006. The demand shows no signs of relenting -- the
>jump from 31,000 in January represents a 45 percent rise.
>
>But by domain name standards, the number of ".su" registrations is still
>very small. Russia's ".ru," for instance, has more than 1 million names.
>Germany's ".de" has 12 million, and the global ".com" has about 75 million.
>
>Champions of the online Soviet domain say there is still plenty of room for
>growth.
>
>Some envisage the ".su" domain as a virtual venue for those who fondly
>recall the old Soviet Union as a place where Russian, the lingua franca of
>the Soviet empire, knit together a host of Asian and European ethnic groups
>and cultures.
>
>And by late April, the ".su" domain plans to start allowing names in
>Russian; currently such names are limited to English letters, numerals and
>the hyphen.
>
>Associated Press Writer David Nowak in Moscow contributed to this story
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri May  2 12:13:59 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 01:13:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members: deadline
 May 21
Message-ID: <p0624082dc440ec66720f@[192.168.1.3]>

Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's 
mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now able 
to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be May 21. 
More about this on the IGF website soon.

Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.

Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice 
from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.

(as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending 
this info...)

Adam



http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm

MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED

The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet 
Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet 
Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to 
continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again 
on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to 
prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad, 
India, on 3 to 6 December.

The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within 
each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups, 
representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including 
the academic and technical communities will submit names to the 
Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve in their 
personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with 
relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out 
and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested 
groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's 
work.  More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum 
website:  www.intgovforum.org.

The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the 
World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005. 
In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked 
the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to 
discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set 
out the Forum's mandate.

The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006 
and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session in 
Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of 
the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri May  2 16:37:26 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 06:37:26 +1000
Subject: [governance] Amended list of MAG Nominess - replacement
 candidate
In-Reply-To: <017501c8ab01$56433060$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <015201c8ac94$5d960830$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Folks,

 

Due to the withdrawal after the event of one of the selected African
candidates, and due to the fact that time is available before the end of
nominations to put forward a replacement name, the NomCOM has decided to add
the name Sheraan Amod to replace Dawit Bekele. 

 

The final slate is now

 

Africa

 

Sheraan Amod

Ken Lohento

Natasha Primo

 

 

Asia

 

Izumi Aizu

Iffat Rose Gill

Y. J. Park

Adam Peake

 

 

Europe

 

Vittorio Bertola

William Drake

Jeanette Hofmann

 

LAC

 

Valeria Betancourt

Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza

Graciela Selaimen

 

North America

 

Robin Gross

Michael Gurstein

Milton Mueller

 

 

Parminder will inform the MAG Secretariat.

 

 

 

Ian Peter 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
11:35



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
11:35



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1412 - Release Date: 02/05/2008
16:34
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080503/9810a35d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  3 03:47:11 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 09:47:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Amended list of MAG Nominess - replacement
 candidate
In-Reply-To: <015201c8ac94$5d960830$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <015201c8ac94$5d960830$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <481C187F.2090004@panos-ao.org>

Thank you for taking this issue into account Nomcom.

KL


Ian Peter a écrit :
>
> Folks,
>
>  
>
> Due to the withdrawal after the event of one of the selected African 
> candidates, and due to the fact that time is available before the end 
> of nominations to put forward a replacement name, the NomCOM has 
> decided to add the name Sheraan Amod to replace Dawit Bekele.
>
>  
>
> The final slate is now
>
>  
>
> Africa
>
>  
>
> Sheraan Amod
>
> Ken Lohento
>
> Natasha Primo
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Asia
>
>  
>
> Izumi Aizu
>
> Iffat Rose Gill
>
> Y. J. Park
>
> Adam Peake
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Europe
>
>  
>
> Vittorio Bertola
>
> William Drake
>
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
>  
>
> LAC
>
>  
>
> Valeria Betancourt
>
> Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
>
> Graciela Selaimen
>
>  
>
> North America
>
>  
>
> Robin Gross
>
> Michael Gurstein
>
> Milton Mueller
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Parminder will inform the MAG Secretariat.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Ian Peter
>
>  
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 
> 30/04/2008 11:35
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 
> 30/04/2008 11:35
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1412 - Release Date: 
> 02/05/2008 16:34
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>   

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Sat May  3 05:57:53 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:57:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Amended list of MAG Nominess - replacement
 candidate
In-Reply-To: <481C187F.2090004@panos-ao.org>
References: <015201c8ac94$5d960830$8b00a8c0@IAN>
	 <481C187F.2090004@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805030257h76354fahd5ce2d2cda09ad41@mail.gmail.com>

That means playing the watch dog to ascertain an inclusive participation.
Ian, yours wazs a commendable act.

Aaron

2008/5/3 Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org>:

> Thank you for taking this issue into account Nomcom.
>
> KL
>
>
> Ian Peter a écrit :
>
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> > Due to the withdrawal after the event of one of the selected African
> > candidates, and due to the fact that time is available before the end of
> > nominations to put forward a replacement name, the NomCOM has decided to add
> > the name Sheraan Amod to replace Dawit Bekele.
> >
> >
> > The final slate is now
> >
> >
> > Africa
> >
> >
> > Sheraan Amod
> >
> > Ken Lohento
> >
> > Natasha Primo
> >
> >
> >
> > Asia
> >
> >
> > Izumi Aizu
> >
> > Iffat Rose Gill
> >
> > Y. J. Park
> >
> > Adam Peake
> >
> >
> >
> > Europe
> >
> >
> > Vittorio Bertola
> >
> > William Drake
> >
> > Jeanette Hofmann
> >
> >
> > LAC
> >
> >
> > Valeria Betancourt
> >
> > Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
> >
> > Graciela Selaimen
> >
> >
> > North America
> >
> >
> > Robin Gross
> >
> > Michael Gurstein
> >
> > Milton Mueller
> >
> >
> >
> > Parminder will inform the MAG Secretariat.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date:
> > 30/04/2008 11:35
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date:
> > 30/04/2008 11:35
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1412 - Release Date:
> > 02/05/2008 16:34
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080503/18d5349b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May  3 22:59:20 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 08:29:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Amended list of MAG Nominess - replacement
 candidate
In-Reply-To: <015201c8ac94$5d960830$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080504025929.A593BA6C27@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Thanks Ian, Robert, Guru, Hakikur and Rudi,

 

The final list with bios has been sent to the MAG secretariat. 

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:07 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Amended list of MAG Nominess - replacement
candidate

 

Folks,

 

Due to the withdrawal after the event of one of the selected African
candidates, and due to the fact that time is available before the end of
nominations to put forward a replacement name, the NomCOM has decided to add
the name Sheraan Amod to replace Dawit Bekele. 

 

The final slate is now

 

Africa

 

Sheraan Amod

Ken Lohento

Natasha Primo

 

 

Asia

 

Izumi Aizu

Iffat Rose Gill

Y. J. Park

Adam Peake

 

 

Europe

 

Vittorio Bertola

William Drake

Jeanette Hofmann

 

LAC

 

Valeria Betancourt

Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza

Graciela Selaimen

 

North America

 

Robin Gross

Michael Gurstein

Milton Mueller

 

 

Parminder will inform the MAG Secretariat.

 

 

 

Ian Peter 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
11:35



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
11:35



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1412 - Release Date: 02/05/2008
16:34


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080504/4c7ee945/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May  3 23:06:46 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 08:36:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
 deadline May 21
In-Reply-To: <p0624082dc440ec66720f@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <20080504030655.EE70367818@smtp1.electricembers.net>



I find the following part form the UN press release significant, and also
relevant to some of the discussion we have on CS and IGC sponsored MAG
members on this list.

" All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have
extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be
willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
interested groups.........."

Earlier, if I remember right, it was only 'serve in their personal
capacity'. Some kind of representative aspect is now clearly built in, and
also post- nomination accountability in form of clear proof of willingness
to reach and out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
interested groups...

Thanks

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:44 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members: deadline
> May 21
> 
> Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's
> mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now able
> to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be May 21.
> More about this on the IGF website soon.
> 
> Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
> 
> Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice
> from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
> 
> (as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending
> this info...)
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm
> 
> MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED
> 
> The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet
> Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet
> Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to
> continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again
> on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to
> prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad,
> India, on 3 to 6 December.
> 
> The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
> each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,
> representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including
> the academic and technical communities will submit names to the
> Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve in their
> personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with
> relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out
> and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested
> groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's
> work.  More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum
> website:  www.intgovforum.org.
> 
> The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the
> World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005.
> In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked
> the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to
> discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set
> out the Forum's mandate.
> 
> The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006
> and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session in
> Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of
> the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  3 23:29:28 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 08:59:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
 deadline May 21
In-Reply-To: <20080504030655.EE70367818@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <p0624082dc440ec66720f@[192.168.1.3]> <20080504030655.EE70367818@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <001901c8ad97$11716450$34542cf0$@net>

That actually doesn't translate into *accountability*.

Whoever is nominated serves as a PoC for multiple stakeholder groups he may
be linked to is all that's said here.

	suresh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'
> Subject: RE: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> deadline May 21
> 
> 
> 
> I find the following part form the UN press release significant, and
> also
> relevant to some of the discussion we have on CS and IGC sponsored MAG
> members on this list.
> 
> " All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to
> have
> extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to
> be
> willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and
> from
> interested groups.........."
> 
> Earlier, if I remember right, it was only 'serve in their personal
> capacity'. Some kind of representative aspect is now clearly built in,
> and
> also post- nomination accountability in form of clear proof of
> willingness
> to reach and out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
> interested groups...
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Parminder
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:44 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> deadline
> > May 21
> >
> > Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's
> > mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now able
> > to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be May 21.
> > More about this on the IGF website soon.
> >
> > Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
> >
> > Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice
> > from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
> >
> > (as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending
> > this info...)
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm
> >
> > MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED
> >
> > The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet
> > Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet
> > Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to
> > continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again
> > on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to
> > prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad,
> > India, on 3 to 6 December.
> >
> > The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
> > each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,
> > representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including
> > the academic and technical communities will submit names to the
> > Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve in their
> > personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with
> > relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out
> > and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested
> > groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's
> > work.  More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum
> > website:  www.intgovforum.org.
> >
> > The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the
> > World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005.
> > In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked
> > the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to
> > discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set
> > out the Forum's mandate.
> >
> > The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006
> > and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session in
> > Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of
> > the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  4 00:46:56 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 10:16:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] semi offtopic FW: [india-gii] WITFOR 2007:
 Perspectives on ICTs for Prosperityand Development
Message-ID: <002301c8ada1$e30e8a60$a92b9f20$@net>

Not very internet governance related but several people here would be
interested in this

	suresh

----- Forwarded message from Satish Jha <sjha at vsnl.com> -----

From: Satish Jha <sjha at vsnl.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 16:10:32 -0400
Subject: [india-gii] WITFOR 2007: Perspectives on ICTs for Prosperity
and	Development
Reply-To: india-gii at lists.cpsr.org

WITFOR 2007 was held around the theme of ICTs for Prosperity and Development
in Addis Ababa in Aug '07.

A book outlining the respective perspectives of its various commissions
-from ICTs in agriculture, environment, health, legal relations, education,
economic opportunities, infrastructure and empowerment- has been published
and its web edition can be downloaded at the following URL:

http://www.digital-partners.org/Book-WITFOR-2007.pdf

Just in case it may interest you..

Thanks and regards,
Satish Jha
Washington, DC
301 841 7422

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      india-gii at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
      india-gii-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/india-gii


----- End forwarded message -----


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun May  4 00:50:26 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 13:50:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <20080504030657.E4CE2F001C@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com>
References: <20080504030657.E4CE2F001C@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com>
Message-ID: <p06240801c442ebc50f9f@[192.168.1.3]>

Parminder, I don't see much change from the press release announcing 
the MAG in August 2007 
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm>

"The 47 Advisory Group members will serve in their personal capacity. 
They have been chosen from Governments, the private sector and civil 
society, including the academic and technical communities, 
representing all regions.

As part of its mandate, the Advisory Group has been asked 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."

It also reflects the MAG's recommendations "Members should possess 
relevant knowledge and willingness to reach out and ensure continuous 
flow of information to and from interested groups." etc. 
<http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf>

The IGF website now has a note about renewal of the MAG and asks for 
proposals for new members.  It does not include the May 21 deadline 
and I wonder if this is a mistake (Markus mentioned May 21 as the 
deadline for proposing names on the MAG list a few days ago.  Will 
check.)

There' also a new note about workshops.  We can continue to edit 
workshop proposals until May 9.  After that the online form will be 
frozen until after the consultation when the pages will re-open and 
proposals can continue to be updated.

Adam




>I find the following part form the UN press release significant, and also
>relevant to some of the discussion we have on CS and IGC sponsored MAG
>members on this list.
>
>" All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have
>extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be
>willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
>interested groups.........."
>
>Earlier, if I remember right, it was only 'serve in their personal
>capacity'. Some kind of representative aspect is now clearly built in, and
>also post- nomination accountability in form of clear proof of willingness
>to reach and out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
>interested groups...
>
>Thanks
>
>Parminder
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>  Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:44 PM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members: deadline
>>  May 21
>>
>>  Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's
>>  mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now able
>>  to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be May 21.
>>  More about this on the IGF website soon.
>>
>>  Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
>>
>>  Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice
>>  from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
>>
>>  (as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending
>>  this info...)
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>
>>
>  > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm
>>
>>  MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED
>>
>>  The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet
>>  Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet
>>  Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to
>>  continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again
>>  on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to
>>  prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad,
>>  India, on 3 to 6 December.
>>
>>  The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
>>  each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,
>>  representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including
>>  the academic and technical communities will submit names to the
>>  Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve in their
>  > personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with
>>  relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out
>>  and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested
>>  groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's
>>  work.  More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum
>>  website:  www.intgovforum.org.
>>
>>  The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the
>>  World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005.
>>  In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked
>>  the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to
>>  discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set
>>  out the Forum's mandate.
>>
>>  The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006
>  > and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session in
>>  Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of
>>  the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May  4 02:49:05 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 12:19:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <p06240801c442ebc50f9f@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <20080504064916.085226785A@smtp1.electricembers.net>


> Parminder, I don't see much change from the press release announcing
> the MAG in August 2007
> <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm>

I noted this. But the evolution is on terms of it being made specifically as
a kind of condition for selecting new members, since the part I quoted
follows the part which speaks about new members.

" The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
> >>  each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,
> >>  representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including
> >>  the academic and technical communities will submit names to the
> >>  Internet Governance Forum Secretariat."

After which follows

All members serve in their
> >  > personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with
> >>  relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out
> >>  and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested
> >>  groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's
> >>  work.  


Apparently, SG in selecting new MAG members will keep in mind both these
factors, or at least he should keep them in mind as per this above
declaration.  Correspondingly, IGC and other groups forwarding names should
also keep these in kinds.   And these 'new' factors are not entirely
obvious. I can think of very progressive minded persons who really score
very poorly on 'extensive linkages with civil society groups (the relevant
stakeholder groups in this case). And I can think of people who are not too
good at or keen on ensuring continuous flow of information to and from...


I am sure these factors would have been in the back of the mind of the
nomcom, at least to some extent, but if the nomcom had worked after this
declaration it is entirely likely, and in my opinion, very reasonable, that
these factors would have been applied more clearly and explicitly.  

Do you not read in the above some new developments.

 To take a non-CS example, the new conditions mean that we just cant have a
microsoft or an intel person in the private sector part of the MAG, the
person should be able to demonstrate sufficient linkages to business sector
in general, and, an even more difficult condition, be willing to communicate
effectively with a good swathe of business persons/ entities/ interests. 


Also, getting on to an issue about which you have often argued - personal
capacity versus representation-ness. Apart from the fact that all the above
'conditions' anchor the representative-ness aspect of MAG membership quite
strongly, for the first time the phrase 'MAG members serve in personal
capacity' has a clear qualifier 'but' balancing it with certain amount of
representativeness. We all know, at least I have argued often, that no
represenativeness, in any system, is ever absolute, as is personal capacity
never absolute. Which makes the reverse of this true, that there is some
degree of representiveness in MAG members as there is some amount of
'personal capacity'. I know it should be obvious, but there are times when
the 'personal capacity' argument has been taken too far.


I think these new developments are so salutary for moving towards more
legitimate global public bodies, especially in the contexts of some new-age
obfuscations that have off late been quite strong, that I am inclined to
write a congratulatory letter to the SG.

Parminder  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:20 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> 
> Parminder, I don't see much change from the press release announcing
> the MAG in August 2007
> <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm>
> 
> "The 47 Advisory Group members will serve in their personal capacity.
> They have been chosen from Governments, the private sector and civil
> society, including the academic and technical communities,
> representing all regions.
> 
> As part of its mandate, the Advisory Group has been asked 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."
> 
> It also reflects the MAG's recommendations "Members should possess
> relevant knowledge and willingness to reach out and ensure continuous
> flow of information to and from interested groups." etc.
> <http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf>
> 
> The IGF website now has a note about renewal of the MAG and asks for
> proposals for new members.  It does not include the May 21 deadline
> and I wonder if this is a mistake (Markus mentioned May 21 as the
> deadline for proposing names on the MAG list a few days ago.  Will
> check.)
> 
> There' also a new note about workshops.  We can continue to edit
> workshop proposals until May 9.  After that the online form will be
> frozen until after the consultation when the pages will re-open and
> proposals can continue to be updated.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >I find the following part form the UN press release significant, and also
> >relevant to some of the discussion we have on CS and IGC sponsored MAG
> >members on this list.
> >
> >" All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have
> >extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be
> >willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and
> from
> >interested groups.........."
> >
> >Earlier, if I remember right, it was only 'serve in their personal
> >capacity'. Some kind of representative aspect is now clearly built in,
> and
> >also post- nomination accountability in form of clear proof of
> willingness
> >to reach and out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
> >interested groups...
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>  Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:44 PM
> >>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> deadline
> >>  May 21
> >>
> >>  Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's
> >>  mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now able
> >>  to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be May 21.
> >>  More about this on the IGF website soon.
> >>
> >>  Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
> >>
> >>  Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice
> >>  from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
> >>
> >>  (as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending
> >>  this info...)
> >>
> >>  Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >  > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm
> >>
> >>  MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED
> >>
> >>  The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet
> >>  Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet
> >>  Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to
> >>  continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again
> >>  on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to
> >>  prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad,
> >>  India, on 3 to 6 December.
> >>
> >>  The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
> >>  each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,
> >>  representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including
> >>  the academic and technical communities will submit names to the
> >>  Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve in their
> >  > personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with
> >>  relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out
> >>  and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested
> >>  groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's
> >>  work.  More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum
> >>  website:  www.intgovforum.org.
> >>
> >>  The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the
> >>  World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005.
> >>  In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked
> >>  the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to
> >>  discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set
> >>  out the Forum's mandate.
> >>
> >>  The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006
> >  > and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session in
> >>  Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of
> >>  the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.
> >>  ____________________________________________________________
> >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >>  For all list information and functions, see:
> >>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May  4 03:13:29 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 12:43:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <p06240801c442ebc50f9f@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <20080504071336.C68D0E25D4@smtp3.electricembers.net>


> There' also a new note about workshops.  We can continue to edit
> workshop proposals until May 9.  


Thanks for this info, Adam.

Workshop WGs please note. They can put in any changes as necessary till the
9th. I got the password to change which I will share with WG conveners.

Parminder 




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sun May  4 03:47:04 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 13:17:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <20080504064916.085226785A@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <p06240801c442ebc50f9f@[192.168.1.3]> <20080504064916.085226785A@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <00b001c8adbb$0e7c83f0$2b758bd0$@net>

Funnily enough, Microsoft is actually involved in a wide variety of
initiatives, several of them genuinely multistakeholder and not merely
engaged in promoting microsoft's own interests.

>  To take a non-CS example, the new conditions mean that we just cant
> have a microsoft or an intel person in the private sector part of the MAG,
the
> person should be able to demonstrate sufficient linkages to business
> sector in general, and, an even more difficult condition, be willing to
> communicate effectively with a good swathe of business persons/ entities/
interests.


> strongly, for the first time the phrase 'MAG members serve in personal
> capacity' has a clear qualifier 'but' balancing it with certain amount
> of representativeness. We all know, at least I have argued often, that no

It is in plain enough English. There's a big difference between serving as a
liaison / link to various civil societies, and being responsible and
accountable to them.

Your logic is specious.. and there are quite a few of the classical logical
fallacies in your argument here, below.

> represenativeness, in any system, is ever absolute, as is personal
> capacity never absolute. Which makes the reverse of this true, that there
is
> some degree of representiveness in MAG members as there is some amount of

How?

> I know it should be obvious, but there are times
> when the 'personal capacity' argument has been taken too far.

You keep repeating the opposite though. And your long, long emails
attempting to justify the logic behind your conclusions don't help bring the
argument to an end either.

Repeating the same thing again and again doesn't make it true, Parminder.
Really.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  4 08:52:09 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 09:52:09 -0300
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
 deadline
In-Reply-To: <001901c8ad97$11716450$34542cf0$@net>
References: <p0624082dc440ec66720f@[192.168.1.3]> <20080504030655.EE70367818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <001901c8ad97$11716450$34542cf0$@net>
Message-ID: <481DB179.70103@rits.org.br>

Not formal or legal accountability, but yes otherwise: "members need to 
be willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and 
from interested groups..." Far beyond just being a PoC.

--c.a.

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> That actually doesn't translate into *accountability*.
> 
> Whoever is nominated serves as a PoC for multiple stakeholder groups he may
> be linked to is all that's said here.
> 
> 	suresh
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:37 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'
>> Subject: RE: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
>> deadline May 21
>>
>>
>>
>> I find the following part form the UN press release significant, and
>> also
>> relevant to some of the discussion we have on CS and IGC sponsored MAG
>> members on this list.
>>
>> " All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to
>> have
>> extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to
>> be
>> willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and
>> from
>> interested groups.........."
>>
>> Earlier, if I remember right, it was only 'serve in their personal
>> capacity'. Some kind of representative aspect is now clearly built in,
>> and
>> also post- nomination accountability in form of clear proof of
>> willingness
>> to reach and out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
>> interested groups...
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:44 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
>> deadline
>>> May 21
>>>
>>> Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's
>>> mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now able
>>> to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be May 21.
>>> More about this on the IGF website soon.
>>>
>>> Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
>>>
>>> Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice
>>> from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
>>>
>>> (as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending
>>> this info...)
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm
>>>
>>> MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED
>>>
>>> The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet
>>> Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet
>>> Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to
>>> continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again
>>> on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to
>>> prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad,
>>> India, on 3 to 6 December.
>>>
>>> The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
>>> each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,
>>> representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including
>>> the academic and technical communities will submit names to the
>>> Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve in their
>>> personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with
>>> relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out
>>> and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested
>>> groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's
>>> work.  More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum
>>> website:  www.intgovforum.org.
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the
>>> World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005.
>>> In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked
>>> the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to
>>> discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set
>>> out the Forum's mandate.
>>>
>>> The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006
>>> and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session in
>>> Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of
>>> the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  4 12:23:40 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 09:23:40 -0700
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <20080504064916.085226785A@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <003b01c8ae03$4742bc70$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


I've no idea of the provenance of this particular document but having been
involved at various stages in reading these types of documents and even
helping to draft a few of them I think that Parminder is quite correct in
how he is interpreting the somewhat glacial but nevertheless significant
evolution going on here... What seems to be happening is a "taking into
account" of the positions that CS has been putting forward in various venues
including through representation on the MAG.

In these documents its often what is not said or how one phrase modifies or
is juxtaposed with another that is meant to signal (though not specify)
meaning... They are drafted so as to be ambiguous, to allow change to occur
without it seeming to occur... 

Agreeing with Parminder, these are notable though mostly very subtle
advances I would say.

MG

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: May 3, 2008 11:49 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'
Subject: RE: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:



> Parminder, I don't see much change from the press release announcing 
> the MAG in August 2007 
> <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm>

I noted this. But the evolution is on terms of it being made specifically as
a kind of condition for selecting new members, since the part I quoted
follows the part which speaks about new members.

" The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
> >>  each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,  
> >> representing Governments, private sector and civil society, 
> >> including  the academic and technical communities will submit names 
> >> to the  Internet Governance Forum Secretariat."

After which follows

All members serve in their
> >  > personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages 
> > with
> >>  relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach 
> >> out  and ensure continuous flow of information to and from 
> >> interested  groups and to participate actively and constructively 
> >> in the Group's  work.


Apparently, SG in selecting new MAG members will keep in mind both these
factors, or at least he should keep them in mind as per this above
declaration.  Correspondingly, IGC and other groups forwarding names should
also keep these in kinds.   And these 'new' factors are not entirely
obvious. I can think of very progressive minded persons who really score
very poorly on 'extensive linkages with civil society groups (the relevant
stakeholder groups in this case). And I can think of people who are not too
good at or keen on ensuring continuous flow of information to and from...


I am sure these factors would have been in the back of the mind of the
nomcom, at least to some extent, but if the nomcom had worked after this
declaration it is entirely likely, and in my opinion, very reasonable, that
these factors would have been applied more clearly and explicitly.  

Do you not read in the above some new developments.

 To take a non-CS example, the new conditions mean that we just cant have a
microsoft or an intel person in the private sector part of the MAG, the
person should be able to demonstrate sufficient linkages to business sector
in general, and, an even more difficult condition, be willing to communicate
effectively with a good swathe of business persons/ entities/ interests. 


Also, getting on to an issue about which you have often argued - personal
capacity versus representation-ness. Apart from the fact that all the above
'conditions' anchor the representative-ness aspect of MAG membership quite
strongly, for the first time the phrase 'MAG members serve in personal
capacity' has a clear qualifier 'but' balancing it with certain amount of
representativeness. We all know, at least I have argued often, that no
represenativeness, in any system, is ever absolute, as is personal capacity
never absolute. Which makes the reverse of this true, that there is some
degree of representiveness in MAG members as there is some amount of
'personal capacity'. I know it should be obvious, but there are times when
the 'personal capacity' argument has been taken too far.


I think these new developments are so salutary for moving towards more
legitimate global public bodies, especially in the contexts of some new-age
obfuscations that have off late been quite strong, that I am inclined to
write a congratulatory letter to the SG.

Parminder  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:20 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> 
> Parminder, I don't see much change from the press release announcing 
> the MAG in August 2007 
> <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm>
> 
> "The 47 Advisory Group members will serve in their personal capacity. 
> They have been chosen from Governments, the private sector and civil 
> society, including the academic and technical communities, 
> representing all regions.
> 
> As part of its mandate, the Advisory Group has been asked 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."
> 
> It also reflects the MAG's recommendations "Members should possess 
> relevant knowledge and willingness to reach out and ensure continuous 
> flow of information to and from interested groups." etc. 
> <http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf>
> 
> The IGF website now has a note about renewal of the MAG and asks for 
> proposals for new members.  It does not include the May 21 deadline 
> and I wonder if this is a mistake (Markus mentioned May 21 as the 
> deadline for proposing names on the MAG list a few days ago.  Will
> check.)
> 
> There' also a new note about workshops.  We can continue to edit 
> workshop proposals until May 9.  After that the online form will be 
> frozen until after the consultation when the pages will re-open and 
> proposals can continue to be updated.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >I find the following part form the UN press release significant, and 
> >also relevant to some of the discussion we have on CS and IGC 
> >sponsored MAG members on this list.
> >
> >" All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to 
> >have extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups.  Members 
> >need to be willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of 
> >information to and
> from
> >interested groups.........."
> >
> >Earlier, if I remember right, it was only 'serve in their personal 
> >capacity'. Some kind of representative aspect is now clearly built 
> >in,
> and
> >also post- nomination accountability in form of clear proof of
> willingness
> >to reach and out and ensure continuous flow of information to and 
> >from interested groups...
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>  Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:44 PM
> >>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> deadline
> >>  May 21
> >>
> >>  Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's
> >>  mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now 
> >> able  to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be 
> >> May 21.  More about this on the IGF website soon.
> >>
> >>  Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
> >>
> >>  Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's 
> >> advice  from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
> >>
> >>  (as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending  
> >> this info...)
> >>
> >>  Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >  > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm
> >>
> >>  MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED
> >>
> >>  The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet  
> >> Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for 
> >> Internet  Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has 
> >> been asked to  continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, 
> >> which will meet again  on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing 
> >> over to a renewed group to  prepare the next Internet Governance 
> >> Forum meeting in Hyderabad,  India, on 3 to 6 December.
> >>
> >>  The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members 
> >> within  each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,  
> >> representing Governments, private sector and civil society, 
> >> including  the academic and technical communities will submit names 
> >> to the  Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve 
> >> in their
> >  > personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages 
> > with
> >>  relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach 
> >> out  and ensure continuous flow of information to and from 
> >> interested  groups and to participate actively and constructively 
> >> in the Group's  work.  More details are available on the Internet 
> >> Governance Forum
> >>  website:  www.intgovforum.org.
> >>
> >>  The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of 
> >> the  World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 
> >> 2005.  In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments 
> >> asked  the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy 
> >> dialogue" to  discuss issues related to key elements of Internet 
> >> governance and set  out the Forum's mandate.
> >>
> >>  The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 
> >> 2006
> >  > and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session 
> > in
> >>  Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation 
> >> of  the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.  
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >>  For all list information and functions, see:
> >>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  4 12:23:40 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 09:23:40 -0700
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <00b001c8adbb$0e7c83f0$2b758bd0$@net>
Message-ID: <003601c8ae03$45754f70$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


Suresh,

This seems to me to be right on the edge of troll-ery and personal abuse...

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: May 4, 2008 12:47 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Adam Peake'
Subject: RE: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:

..

It is in plain enough English. There's a big difference between serving as a
liaison / link to various civil societies, and being responsible and
accountable to them.

Your logic is specious.. and there are quite a few of the classical logical
fallacies in your argument here, below.

> represenativeness, in any system, is ever absolute, as is personal 
> capacity never absolute. Which makes the reverse of this true, that 
> there
is
> some degree of representiveness in MAG members as there is some amount 
> of

How?

> I know it should be obvious, but there are times
> when the 'personal capacity' argument has been taken too far.

You keep repeating the opposite though. And your long, long emails
attempting to justify the logic behind your conclusions don't help bring the
argument to an end either.

Repeating the same thing again and again doesn't make it true, Parminder.
Really.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May  4 12:33:35 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 22:03:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
 deadline
In-Reply-To: <481DB179.70103@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20080504163348.2765667819@smtp1.electricembers.net>



> Not formal or legal accountability, but yes otherwise: "members need to
> be willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and
> from interested groups..." Far beyond just being a PoC.

Right.

Either one does 'not' believe in political accountability at all - which
means one doesn't believe exercise of social power should be accountable.

Or one believes (and invests) only in absolute formal and legal political
accountability - the kind seen in working of governments. 

Or, one (also) believes in more diverse, diffused and nuanced forms of
political accountability appreciating the (increasingly greater)
complexities of political and social power in our society, and its sources
of legitimacy, in which case terms like accountability and
representativeness also take correspondingly nuanced meanings, which are
continuously constructed and de-constructed.

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 6:22 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: 'Parminder'; 'Adam Peake'
> Subject: Re: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> deadline
> 
> Not formal or legal accountability, but yes otherwise: "members need to
> be willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and
> from interested groups..." Far beyond just being a PoC.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > That actually doesn't translate into *accountability*.
> >
> > Whoever is nominated serves as a PoC for multiple stakeholder groups he
> may
> > be linked to is all that's said here.
> >
> > 	suresh
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:37 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'
> >> Subject: RE: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> >> deadline May 21
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I find the following part form the UN press release significant, and
> >> also
> >> relevant to some of the discussion we have on CS and IGC sponsored MAG
> >> members on this list.
> >>
> >> " All members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to
> >> have
> >> extensive linkages with relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to
> >> be
> >> willing to reach out and ensure continuous flow of information to and
> >> from
> >> interested groups.........."
> >>
> >> Earlier, if I remember right, it was only 'serve in their personal
> >> capacity'. Some kind of representative aspect is now clearly built in,
> >> and
> >> also post- nomination accountability in form of clear proof of
> >> willingness
> >> to reach and out and ensure continuous flow of information to and from
> >> interested groups...
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Parminder
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:44 PM
> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
> >> deadline
> >>> May 21
> >>>
> >>> Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's
> >>> mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now able
> >>> to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be May 21.
> >>> More about this on the IGF website soon.
> >>>
> >>> Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
> >>>
> >>> Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice
> >>> from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
> >>>
> >>> (as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending
> >>> this info...)
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/pi1829.doc.htm
> >>>
> >>> MANDATE OF ADVISORY GROUP OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM EXTENDED
> >>>
> >>> The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet
> >>> Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet
> >>> Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to
> >>> continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again
> >>> on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to
> >>> prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad,
> >>> India, on 3 to 6 December.
> >>>
> >>> The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within
> >>> each stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups,
> >>> representing Governments, private sector and civil society, including
> >>> the academic and technical communities will submit names to the
> >>> Internet Governance Forum Secretariat.  All members serve in their
> >>> personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with
> >>> relevant stakeholder groups.  Members need to be willing to reach out
> >>> and ensure continuous flow of information to and from interested
> >>> groups and to participate actively and constructively in the Group's
> >>> work.  More details are available on the Internet Governance Forum
> >>> website:  www.intgovforum.org.
> >>>
> >>> The Internet Governance Forum is an outcome of the Tunis phase of the
> >>> World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in 2005.
> >>> In the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, Governments asked
> >>> the Secretary-General to convene a "new forum for policy dialogue" to
> >>> discuss issues related to key elements of Internet governance and set
> >>> out the Forum's mandate.
> >>>
> >>> The Forum's first two meetings took place in Athens in November 2006
> >>> and in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.  A stock-taking session in
> >>> Geneva on 26 February 2008 showed broad support for a continuation of
> >>> the multi-stakeholder preparatory process.
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  4 12:42:35 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 09:42:35 -0700
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <003601c8ae03$45754f70$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <00b001c8adbb$0e7c83f0$2b758bd0$@net> <003601c8ae03$45754f70$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <20080504164235.GA20478@hserus.net>

Michael Gurstein [04/05/08 09:23 -0700]:
>
>Suresh,
>
>This seems to me to be right on the edge of troll-ery and personal abuse...
>
>MG

It would except that there are obvious fallacies there in the reasoning
Parminder presents.

And while evolution may be in that direction, I do hope the MAG gets
talented individuals who actually contribute and dont simply serve as the
mouthpiece for whatever organization (govt, CS etc) they represent, beyond
broad guidelines.

Having formal accountability (if the process slides down the slope
parminder alludes to) would not be a very good thing for the MAG's
functioning.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  4 13:11:34 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 10:11:34 -0700
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <20080504164235.GA20478@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <005701c8ae09$ecd0ba60$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


I think that Parminder got it precisely correct both from the MAG's
perspective and from the CS perspective -- that is, in the current state of
civil society development, multi-stakeholder consultative process
development and the relationship between the two, there is a necessity for
participation as an individual (there are no procedures for realizing formal
"representation" either within CS or between CS and the various bodies in
which it is represented).  There is also the necessity for a degree of
accountability since the entire structure of multi-stakeholderism is based
on a necessary linkage between participation and broader stakeholder groups.

How all that will be worked out over time remains to be seen and there are
multiple contending political and social forces at play here, but this is
the best we've got at the moment and what seems to be happening with the
IGF/MAG is to my mind at least a very very interesting and potentially
positive set of nuanced developments in the global governance sphere.

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: May 4, 2008 9:43 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Adam Peake'
Subject: Re: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:


Michael Gurstein [04/05/08 09:23 -0700]:
>
>Suresh,
>
>This seems to me to be right on the edge of troll-ery and personal 
>abuse...
>
>MG

It would except that there are obvious fallacies there in the reasoning
Parminder presents.

And while evolution may be in that direction, I do hope the MAG gets
talented individuals who actually contribute and dont simply serve as the
mouthpiece for whatever organization (govt, CS etc) they represent, beyond
broad guidelines.

Having formal accountability (if the process slides down the slope parminder
alludes to) would not be a very good thing for the MAG's functioning.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  5 03:37:34 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:37:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <20080504064916.085226785A@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <p06240801c442ebc50f9f@192.168.1.3>
	 <20080504064916.085226785A@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805050037s30018b0fy77df4c972980b28d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  I think these new developments are so salutary for moving towards more
>  legitimate global public bodies, especially in the contexts of some new-age
>  obfuscations that have off late been quite strong, that I am inclined to
>  write a congratulatory letter to the SG.

<irony>

Oh yes, please, let's write one from the IGC, suggested text below:

Dear Ban,

Thanks ever so much for having your 3rd assistant's flunky's press
liaison's minion change a few words from last years press release
regarding the IGF MAG.   We feel ever so much better now about your
office deciding who gets on the MAG now that we know these people are
at least supposed "to be willing to reach out".

The Internet coordination process has been called  "bottom-up" because
it is based on the concept that all Internet users can contribute to
that process.  We thank you for taking some names from us folks here
in the "middle", so that you can make a  "top-down" decision.  It
makes us feel all warm 'n fuzzy that you may or may not appoint our
nominees to a group who very loosely oversee the operation of a
non-binding discussion forum.

It makes all the difference in the world. Really.

So, keep up the good work, and while your at it, maybe you can get
your MONUC lads to stop selling their guns to the local boys?  You
could do it the same way you got them to stop exchanging sacks of food
for young girls to use as sex toys, as that worked a treat! Oh, and
speaking of food, prices around the world seem to be creeping up a
bit, don't you have an office in Rome to look into this?

Ta very much!

</irony>

-- 
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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon May  5 07:59:48 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 12:59:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <p0624082dc440ec66720f@[192.168.1.3]>
References: <p0624082dc440ec66720f@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <20080505120005.A1E83448F2E@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi adam

>Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's 
>mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now 
>able to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be 
>May 21. More about this on the IGF website soon.
>
>Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
>
>Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's advice 
>from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
>
>(as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending 
>this info...)

thanks for this.. can you get more info on the 'special 
advisors',  and whether these positions are also open to rotation and 
whether we can improve diversity here.. if so, in what ways - 
particularly those who advise nitin desai

and what of the indian co-chair? will they also have sepcial advisors 
as the brazilian cho-chair had last year?

whatever info you can get would be appreciated

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080505/be468621/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  6 10:48:04 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 23:48:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG mandate extended, call for new members:
In-Reply-To: <20080505120005.A1E83448F2E@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <p0624082dc440ec66720f@[192.168.1.3]>
 <20080505120005.A1E83448F2E@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <p06240819c4461dba7323@[192.168.1.3]>

>hi adam
>
>>Markus Kummer just sent a note to the MAG list about the group's 
>>mandate: the mandate's been extended, and the secretariat is now 
>>able to issue a formal call for new members.  The deadline will be 
>>May 21. More about this on the IGF website soon.
>>
>>Nitin Desai has been asked to continue as chair.
>>
>>Press release below. The secretary general accepted the MAG's 
>>advice from the February meeting about rotating up to one third.
>>
>>(as this list has a delay I expect I won't be the only one sending 
>>this info...)
>>
>
>thanks for this.. can you get more info on the 'special advisors', 
>and whether these positions are also open to rotation and whether we 
>can improve diversity here.. if so, in what ways - particularly 
>those who advise nitin desai


Karen, to the best of my understanding nothing has been decided about 
chair's advisors.  There have been comments about the role of 
advisors on the MAG list, most have at the least asked for 
clarification about what their role is.  So I expect there will be 
some discussion about this during the MAG's meeting next week.  And 
of course you (anyone) is free to ask questions and make 
comments/recommendations during the open consultation.  The caucus 
could simply restate earlier opinions.  Doesn't hurt to reinforce 
these things.

I believe those serving as Nitin's advisors will participate in the 
next MAG meeting, but again there has been no official comment about 
this.


>and what of the indian co-chair? will they also have sepcial 
>advisors as the brazilian cho-chair had last year?


Again, not entirely clear to me, but my understanding is at the 
moment there is no co-chair from the host country.  Nitin of course 
has been asked to continue as chair, but no mention in the press 
release of a co-chair. Don't like to read too much into these things, 
but perhaps that's an indication there won't be a co-chair. Your 
guess as good as mine.

Vague, but I hope this helps.

Best,

Adam


>whatever info you can get would be appreciated
>
>karen
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue May  6 10:59:07 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 23:59:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] dates for September IGF consultations
Message-ID: <p0624081bc446217b547d@[192.168.1.3]>

Dates for the September consultations have been set:

16 September: Open Consultations
17-18 September: MAG meeting.

I wouldn't buy tickets or book hotels yet, as we've seen in the past 
dates can move a little.  But good enough for early planning.

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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Wed May  7 03:12:25 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 08:12:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Building concensus on Access at the IGF
Message-ID: <20080507071228.50DD541AFB7@mail.gn.apc.org>

Dear all

Just prior to the February consultation, i posted 
a report on the cluster of access related events 
at the Rio IGF - "Building concensus on Access at the IGF"

The paper has now been edited and formatted and 
will be available in hard copy at the May 
consultation for thos interested.. soft copies 
available online here: 
http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/openaccess/all/building-consensus-internet-access-igf

An abstract of the paper is below which contains 
specific proposals to the IGF community on how to 
address the theme of access in the coming years.

We are very interested to hear reactions from colleagues ..

thanks a lot and see some of you in geneva next week

karen

Building consensus on internet access at the IGF
Abiodun Jagun
APC, Montevideo, May 2008

This paper identifies and documents the main 
areas of discussions and ‘recommendations’ that 
were generated under the Access theme at the 
second Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio De Janeiro, November 2007.

Whilst recognising that the IGF is currently 
viewed and operates primarily as a space for 
discussion, the paper finds that (specifically in 
the case of Access) it is also a space in which 
commonality of opinion occurs to the level at 
which ‘recommendations’ can be made and 
repeatedly asserted independently/individually in 
the workshops, and strategically reinforced at different levels of the IGF.

The levels addressed in the paper include:

- the three ‘thematic’ workshops on access
- the reporting back session
- and the main access plenary

The paper finds the generation and articulation 
of recommendations to be in line with the mandate of the IGF, specifically:

"Advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and 
means to accelerate the availability and 
affordability of the Internet in the developing world."

Whilst a variety of recommendations were made, 
these can be categorised into the following broad areas:

* Enhancement of the development of and access to 
infrastructure – in recognising that the 
availability of internet infrastructure needs to 
be considered hand-in-hand with the affordability 
of the infrastructure, this recommendation calls 
for the consistent implementation of competitive 
regimes and the creation of incentives that 
facilitate the co-existence of competitive and 
collaborative models for providing and/or improving access.

* Localisation of ICT and Telecom policies and 
regulation – refers to calls for a review of the 
ways in which access issues are articulated and 
ICT/Telecom policy and regulation is formulated. 
It asks that the translation/customisation of 
largely urban-centric policies be challenged and 
that greater emphasis be given to demand-side 
characteristics and the needs of rural/local communities.

* Promoting the development potential of ICTs and 
integrating access infrastructure initiatives 
with other basic needs – calls for a 
multi-sectoral approach to infrastructure 
development and regulation; specifically the 
integration of ICT regulation and policy with 
local development strategies, as well as the 
exploitation of complementarities between 
different types of development infrastructure

This paper proposes that the convergence in 
opinions about how to address the challenges of 
access may be a result of a maturity in 
understanding of the issues relating to access 
that has built up over time and is discussed in 
other related bodies and fora. However, thinking 
and understanding of ‘tools’ and implementation 
procedures/processes of solutions for 
resolving/addressing these well understood issues 
and challenges cannot be described as having 
attained a similar level of maturity – in fact, 
particularly in the case of rural/local access 
they can be described as infantile.

There is therefore continued need and relevance 
for addressing Access at future IGF meetings, 
however the way in which this will need to be 
done will have to be different from the largely 
discursive identification of issues and 
challenges. The Internet governance community and 
indeed the portion of the world’s population 
waiting to gain access to the Internet would 
benefit from a more implementation-orientation to 
future discussions on Access.

One idea proposed by APC is that the IGF uses the 
format of the Working Group on Internet 
Governance (WGIG, established during the World 
Summit on the Information Society), or bodies 
such as the Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF) to convene working groups to address 
complex issues that emerge during a forum. These 
groups can be made up of individuals with the 
necessary expertise and drawn from different 
stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage 
specific issues in greater depth, and, if they 
feel it is required, develop recommendations that 
can be communicated to the internet community at 
large, or addressed to specific institutions.

These recommendations need not be presented as 
formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, but 
as recommendations or suggestions for action from 
the individuals in the working group.

These working groups have a different role from 
the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we 
believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions have 
a broader mandate and are informal in nature. APC 
sees IGF working groups as differing from dynamic 
coalitions in that they should address particular 
challenges rather than a general issue area. They 
will also have a degree of accountability and an 
obligation to report that dynamic coalitions do 
not have. One such group could be a working group 
on competitive and collaborative models for access.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From puna_gb at yahoo.com  Wed May  7 03:45:43 2008
From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 00:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] semi offtopic FW: [india-gii] WITFOR 2007:
 Perspectives on ICTs for Prosperityand Development
In-Reply-To: <002301c8ada1$e30e8a60$a92b9f20$@net>
Message-ID: <720922.74454.qm@web31502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080507/371a700f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May  8 01:38:51 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 22:38:51 -0700
Subject: [governance] Fw: [india-gii] Fwd: [PRC] [X-Post] Interaction with
 Nixi: Planning meeting Fri., 9
Message-ID: <20080508053851.GC19190@hserus.net>

fyi. 

----- Forwarded message from Sandip Bhattacharya <lists at sandipb.net> -----

From: Sandip Bhattacharya <lists at sandipb.net>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:58:16 +0530
To: India GII <india-gii at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [india-gii] Fwd: [PRC] [X-Post] Interaction with Nixi: Planning
	meeting Fri., 9
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Reply-To: india-gii at lists.cpsr.org

(Didn't see this here. For those who are interested - Sandip)

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/prc/Week-of-Mon-20080505/001678.html

  From: Gora Mohanty gora at sarai.net
  Date: Wed May 7 23:53:51 IST 2008

(Please note that this is a rather lengthy message copied to
various lists, as various parts of it are of interest to
different communities. Please edit the list of recipients,
and the body in any follow-ups.)

Hello all,
   Firstly, a formal meeting announcement:
    Event:        ILUG-Delhi meeting
    Date:         Fri., May 9th
    Time:         6.30pm
    Agenda:       o Brainstorming for working with NIXI. Please
                    see details below.
    Participants: All on this list.
    Venue:        BB/3G, DDA flats, Munirka.
    Contact:      Me (9868527992)

   We had an interesting meeting today with some people from
NIXI, the National Internet Exchange of India, which is now
set up as a not-for-profit company. Briefly, NIXI wishes to
play the role of a bridge between industry, government, and
the FOSS community, and has certain advantages over normal
government agencies when it comes to funding projects in this
area.

   Here are some ideas mooted from their side. Please note
that these are open to people from anywhere in India, and
they would like to see country-wide participation:
1. Preparing for roll-out of internationalised top-level
    domain names, i.e., web URLs entirely in Indian languages.
    ICANN should be approving this in some 6 months time, so
    NIXI wants people to participate in an experimental setup
    on a private (to India) network which can go public on the
    Internet on ICANN approval. This work would include the
    preparation of a write-up on potential issues involving
    canonical representations for Unicode names, phishing and
    other security loopholes, etc. Sarai might be hosting an
    informal seminar to introduce this topic, in a week or
    two.
2. ipv6 roll-out: NIXI would like to have a parallel ipv6
    network in 1-2 months time. They have already done training
    and awareness sessions for ipv6 routing, but largely using
    proprietary tools. They would like community folk to hold
    training sessions for (a) MCA-level students, and
    (b) technical folk in small/medium enterprises, universities,
    or other institutions.
3. Software for, and management of .in domain name registry:
    Currently, they use proprietary software, and databases,
    and would like to switch to open-source alternatives.
4. Community participation in the Internet Governance Forum
    (IGF) meeting to be held in Hyderabad from 3-6 Dec., 2008:
    http://www.intgovforum.org/ NIXI wants the community to be
    there, as this is supposed to be a meeting for public
    comment, and I think that it is important that we take
    part. In particular, names are being solicited for
    be part of the advisory group, and the deadline for that
    is May 21st. For more on the IGF, please see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum
5. Of particular interest to IndLinux is that NIXI is willing
    to (a) fund localisation work carried out by distributed
    community groups in the country, (b) fund projects aimed
    at polishing open-source Indian language tools, and deploying
    them, e.g., making sure that OpenOffice, and Mozilla
    Indian language packs get built, and distributed, and
    (c) provide bandwidth, and hosting to such open-source
    projects.
6. Deployment of Indian language, and other open-source
    software developed in India, and/or targeted at an Indian
    population. Their examples were Hindawi, Dhvani, etc.
    The goal here would be to (a) put together software that
    demonstrates the use, and (b) convince people using
    proprietary alternatives to switch.
7. Survey of sites in the .in domain: Someone to carry out
    a study of .in sites (which are currently some 4.5 lakh
    in number), categorise them, and give awards to the best
    sites in various categories, e.g., best Hindi/Indian
    language blogging site, best open-source site, etc.
8. Rework syllabi at elementary, and middle school levels
    to replace references to proprietary applications with
    generic teaching, and/or references to open-source
    alternatives.
9. Bring your own ideas: NIXI is also very interested in
    hearing about your ideas for possible open-source
    projects. Please feel free to contact us at Sarai,
    or to directly get in touch with Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal,
    IAS, Additional CEO, NIXI, or Mr. Ajay Tripathi,
    Technical Officer, NIXI. (Their email addresses are
    in the list of recipients.)

Regards,
Gora

-- 
Sandip Bhattacharya
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     india-gii at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     india-gii-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/india-gii

----- End forwarded message -----

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri May  9 01:50:41 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:20:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
Message-ID: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>

 

Hi all,

 

Just a small reminder that IGF consultations on 13th to 15th is close by. 

 

We wont have time to try and do any statement this time. However all those
who have issues that they will like to see raised may express them here, and
we expect those present in Geneva on the 13th for the open consultations,
and CS MAG members, to take them up. 

 

The agenda of the consultations is available on the website
(http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Feb.synth.paper.rev.1.pdf ), but it says
little other than that IGF program and workshops will be discussed. A
synthesis paper of received comments as an input into the IGF consultations
is also available
(http://intgovforum.org/cont_may08/Programme_Agenda_and_Format_of_the_Hydera
bad_Meeting_.pdf ) .

 

 

We will also present and defend the workshops we are planning to do.

 

Parminder 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080509/9c92e32b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May  9 02:04:34 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:34:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
Message-ID: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>

>A synthesis paper of received comments as an input into the IGF
consultations is also available >
(http://intgovforum.org/cont_may08/Programme_Agenda_and_Format_of_the_Hydera
bad_Meeting_.pdf ) .

 

I haven’t had time to go through the input paper but what I see cursorily
worries me. I think a certain ideological orientation overwhelmingly informs
what goes into the open inputs system of the IGF and gets reflected in these
papers, and then also in IGF meeting agendas. Progressive CS is not doing
enough to counter this, and this is a major failing we much reflect on. I
myself was not able to give inputs in time for the synthesis paper but I
think a much bigger section of progressive CS needs to be engaging with
this. I know a few must already be taking this to be my customary ranting
:-), so I must quickly substantiate. 

 

I have only seen the part on substantive agenda and the nature of comments
listed here, without any counter comments, worries me a lot. Apparently this
will now be accepted as what the world really wants, and what represents
best the interests of most, and be the agenda of the IGF.

 

In the part on “Universalization of the Internet / Expanding the Internet”,
the description of the theme part only mentions one slant of the theme.

 

““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.”

 

What about other possible foci. In light of the fact that references to
community and public models of connectivity and access disappeared
mysteriously from the agenda in the run up to Rio, this shouldn’t be
surprising though.  And also not surprising that those who contributed those
parts the last time did not consider it worth the effort to do so this time.


 

As for the listed new comments, the main one is about the ‘confusing nature’
of the term ‘Universalization of the Internet’.

 

“One comment mentioned that the term “Universalization of the Internet” was
unknown and possibly confusing. This contribution recommended an alternate
title: Expanding the Internet - how to reach the next billion.”

 

I don’t know what is so confusing to the persons who made this comment. And
did I hear ‘universalisation of the Internet’ was unknown ???
Universalisation of service is one of the main and most well known tenets of
telecom policies, expressed in the terms ‘universal service obligations’ and
‘universal service funds’. Almost all countries have some such provisions.
So, what is so confusing here, and ‘unknown’??? Why doesn’t the person(s)
just say more honestly that I do not believe in ‘universalisation of the
Internet’ as an important policy guideline. We can then be discussing issues
opening and honestly, rather than subterfuges of  ‘this is confusing and
unknown’ etc. 

 

And mark it, this is not just one odd comment, and therefore not to be taken
too seriously. The line in the input paper after the above quote is: “This
recommended term has been reflected in other comments received.’ And the
fact that this comment is quite on the top, means it is considered important
and perhaps quite representative of a major, even dominant, view. 

 

So, this is the outcome of our open agenda setting processes, whose level of
openness and participation are exemplary etc etc
 I know I could have
submitted counter views, and others should have. But why aren’t they. Do you
really believe that there aren’t strong counter views? In fact that a bigger
part of CS doesn’t not have counter views? Is there anything structural in
the IGF that keeps them out
. ‘Participation’ consists not only in what goes
in, but perhaps more importantly in what comes out – whose interests are
chiefly being served. So, I think we should disabuse ourselves of naïve
notions of openness and participatory-ness of IG processes.  

 

Should close it now, I know. But cant resist mentioning what is the major
set of comments on the second substantive theme of IGF Hyderabad
-“Managing/Using the Internet”

 

A fairly large number of people find the term ‘Managing the Internet’
misleading (???). It must be the same set which finds the term
‘universalisation’ confusing, but they are clearly the dominant voice out
here. 

 

“One comment indicated that that the term “Managing the Internet” was
misleading and recommended changing the theme to “Using the Internet” in
order avoid giving a false impression that these session would question the
legitimacy of the current Internet management arrangements. This
recommendation was also reflected in several other recommendations.”

 

And again this is the ‘top’ comment in this theme, and supported by many
‘others’. I think these guys should have spoken up during the WSIS when IGF
was set up as a policy deliberation forum and TA also spoke of need of
‘globally applicable public polices’ etc , and should have said that this
gives the impression that the legitimacy of existing policy making is being
questioned. And if these people really see this connection logical then let
them infer that WSIS has, through a major world level consensus, already
strongly questioned the legitimacy of these bodies. 

 

And these people give the ‘innocuous’ replacement of ‘managing the internet’
term with ‘using the internet’. Why cant we instead replace it with
‘examining food security issues’ or something. There is no connection
whatsoever between the suggested theme’ managing the internet’ and suggested
replacement ‘using the internet’. And I think this again is an extreme form
of agenda rigging. 

 

There are other great pieces out there – cultural diversity should be
protecting by enhancing IP protection and such
 with no counter views at
all. So much for open, participatory, inclusive, people-centric and
development oriented forums, and their agenda setting processes.

 

Parminder  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080509/a964bc84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri May  9 02:59:00 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 15:59:00 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p06240806c4499d84a9ad@[192.168.1.193]>

Parminder, thanks for mentioning this.

The caucus can re-state comments made in February, we had opinions 
then on the Hyderabad meeting agenda and on modalities.  It helps to 
say them again.

List of workshops also now online 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php> There are a 
lot (some best practise also included.)

I expect there will be remote access and opportunity to submit 
comments by email.  I'll post more information as soon as it's 
available.

Adam


>
>Hi all,
>
>Just a small reminder that IGF consultations on 13th to 15th is close by.
>
>We wont have time to try and do any statement this time. However all 
>those who have issues that they will like to see raised may express 
>them here, and we expect those present in Geneva on the 13th for the 
>open consultations, and CS MAG members, to take them up.
>
>The agenda of the consultations is available on the website 
>(<http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Feb.synth.paper.rev.1.pdf>http://intgovforum.org/rio_reports/Feb.synth.paper.rev.1.pdf 
>), but it says little other than that IGF program and workshops will 
>be discussed. A synthesis paper of received comments as an input 
>into the IGF consultations is also available 
>(<http://intgovforum.org/cont_may08/Programme_Agenda_and_Format_of_the_Hyderabad_Meeting_.pdf>http://intgovforum.org/cont_may08/Programme_Agenda_and_Format_of_the_Hyderabad_Meeting_.pdf 
>) .
>
>
>We will also present and defend the workshops we are planning to do.
>
>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 avri at psg.com  Fri May  9 07:54:37 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 07:54:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <88BCA62A-2E94-4EA2-972D-3BA871DE5716@psg.com>


On 9 May 2008, at 02:04, Parminder wrote:

> “Universalization of the Internet” was unknown and possibly confusing.


and

> “Managing/Using the Internet”

I hesitate to say too much on his theme at this point, but would like  
to suggest that the use of the two comments throughout the document  
indicates that both terms are still being used.  this could be assumed  
to mean that the discussion and hence decision on which way the final  
program will go is still open.  from what i can tell we do not have  
consensus on the usage yet.

i am also assuming that there will be more opportunity to get comments  
into the secretariat that will be synthesized into later versions of  
this rolling document.  seeing papers from other organizations that  
support your view could still have an effect.

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 at Malcolm.id.au  Fri May  9 09:07:31 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 21:07:31 +0800
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <5107615F-A620-4599-B19D-7D7E64B4739E@Malcolm.id.au>

On 09/05/2008, at 2:04 PM, Parminder wrote:

> And these people give the ‘innocuous’ replacement of ‘managing the  
> internet’ term with ‘using the internet’. Why cant we instead  
> replace it with ‘examining food security issues’ or something. There  
> is no connection whatsoever between the suggested theme’ managing  
> the internet’ and suggested replacement ‘using the internet’. And I  
> think this again is an extreme form of agenda rigging.
>
> There are other great pieces out there – cultural diversity should  
> be protecting by enhancing IP protection and such… with no counter  
> views at all. So much for open, participatory, inclusive, people- 
> centric and development oriented forums, and their agenda setting  
> processes.


Yes I agree that the synthesis papers are becoming more and more one- 
sided; the one before this was criticised heavily by ETNO on that  
count.  As for this one, my own contribution (on the IGF's Web  
discussion space) is all but undetectable in the synthesis paper; I  
might as well not have made it.  It did include similar comments to  
yours as to the inanity of the second theme being "Using the Internet".

At present, there is little we can do about this partiality.  What it  
points to is the need for the Secretariat to be made accountable to  
the IGF community, at least by means of its appointment being  
confirmed by the Advisory Group.  This is so in most other Internet  
governance institutions, whose secretariats are appointed by their  
representative executive bodies (eg. the RIRs, most ccTLD registries,  
the GKP, ICANN, the IETF, ISOC, the ITU, the W3C, etc).

As widely lauded as Marcus Kummer and Nitin Desai are, the idea that  
the Secretariat is a neutral organ cannot be maintained; they and  
their staff do have agendas of their own, one of which is to maintain  
the status quo against the prospect of another stand-off between the  
United States and the rest of the world on DNS oversight, and to  
prevent civil society from rocking the boat too hard on issues such as  
enhanced cooperation.

Specifically as to the preparation of synthesis papers and reports of  
meetings, even if the Secretariat prepares them in draft, they should  
be approved by the Advisory Group or similar multi-stakeholder  
committee, as Brazil recommended in May 2007 stating that "the  
chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to prepare such  
a report without the help of a representative, multi-stakeholder and  
regionally balanced group".

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri May  9 10:56:26 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 10:56:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <88BCA62A-2E94-4EA2-972D-3BA871DE5716@psg.com>
References: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net> <88BCA62A-2E94-4EA2-972D-3BA871DE5716@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E37B9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Thanks, Avri, 
But it would still help for us to know more about the process by which
these "synthesis" documents are made. In particular, are they passed by
the MAG? 
Are they reviewed and approved by Desai? Are they published
provisionally for public reaction and then revised? Or do we have to
scream bloody murder to get any change in them?

> -----Original Message-----
> On 9 May 2008, at 02:04, Parminder wrote:
> 
> > "Universalization of the Internet" was unknown and possibly
confusing.
> 
> and
> 
> > "Managing/Using the Internet"
> 
> I hesitate to say too much on his theme at this point, but would like
> to suggest that the use of the two comments throughout the document
> indicates that both terms are still being used.  this could be assumed
> to mean that the discussion and hence decision on which way the final
> program will go is still open.  from what i can tell we do not have
> consensus on the usage yet.
> 
> i am also assuming that there will be more opportunity to get comments
> into the secretariat that will be synthesized into later versions of
> this rolling document.  seeing papers from other organizations that
> support your view could still have an effect.
> 
> 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  Fri May  9 16:38:36 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 23:38:36 +0300
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805091338s52c507d2g5589d95fb863e73a@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>A synthesis paper of received comments as an input into the IGF
>> consultations is also available >
>> (http://intgovforum.org/cont_may08/Programme_Agenda_and_Format_of_the_Hyderabad_Meeting_.pdf
>> ) .
>
>
>
> I haven't had time to go through the input paper but what I see cursorily
> worries me. I think a certain ideological orientation

Can you be more specific about this "ideological orientation"?

 overwhelmingly informs
>  what goes into the open inputs system of the IGF and gets reflected in
> these papers, and then also in IGF meeting agendas. Progressive CS is not
> doing enough to counter this, and this is a major failing we much reflect
> on. I myself was not able to give inputs in time for the synthesis paper but
> I think a much bigger section of progressive CS needs to be engaging with
> this. I know a few must already be taking this to be my customary ranting J,
> so I must quickly substantiate.
>
>
>
> I have only seen the part on substantive agenda and the nature of comments
> listed here, without any counter comments, worries me a lot. Apparently this
> will now be accepted as what the world really wants, and what represents
> best the interests of most, and be the agenda of the IGF.
>

It seems to represent the comments people have made.  Would you rather
the agenda be set without taking these comments into account?

>
>
> In the part on "Universalization of the Internet / Expanding the Internet",
> the description of the theme part only mentions one slant of the theme.
>
>
>
> ""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."
>
>
>
> What about other possible foci. In light of the fact that references to
> community and public models of connectivity and access disappeared
> mysteriously from the agenda in the run up to Rio, this shouldn't be
> surprising though.  And also not surprising that those who contributed those
> parts the last time did not consider it worth the effort to do so this time.
>
>
>
> As for the listed new comments, the main one is about the 'confusing nature'
> of the term 'Universalization of the Internet'.
>
>
>
> "One comment mentioned that the term "Universalization of the Internet" was
> unknown and possibly confusing. This contribution recommended an alternate
> title: Expanding the Internet - how to reach the next billion."
>
>
>
> I don't know what is so confusing to the persons who made this comment. And
> did I hear 'universalisation of the Internet' was unknown ???
> Universalisation of service is one of the main and most well known tenets of
> telecom policies, expressed in the terms 'universal service obligations' and
> 'universal service funds'. Almost all countries have some such provisions.
> So, what is so confusing here, and 'unknown'??? Why doesn't the person(s)
> just say more honestly that I do not believe in 'universalisation of the
> Internet' as an important policy guideline.

How do you know they don't? It seems more likely that they do, but
realise that "universal" may be too big a goal (after all, telecoms
reach is not yet 'universal" despite it being policy terminology.  I
think reaching the next billion is a much more practical goal.

We can then be discussing issues
> opening and honestly, rather than subterfuges of  'this is confusing and
> unknown' etc.

You can't say for certain this is dishonest or subterfugal (is that a word?).

>
>
>
> And mark it, this is not just one odd comment, and therefore not to be taken
> too seriously. The line in the input paper after the above quote is: "This
> recommended term has been reflected in other comments received.' And the
> fact that this comment is quite on the top, means it is considered important
> and perhaps quite representative of a major, even dominant, view.
>

Maybe it was just the first one they got, really, I think you are
reading too much into this!


>
>
> So, this is the outcome of our open agenda setting processes, whose level of
> openness and participation are exemplary etc etc… I know I could have
> submitted counter views, and others should have. But why aren't they. Do you
> really believe that there aren't strong counter views? In fact that a bigger
> part of CS doesn't not have counter views? Is there anything structural in
> the IGF that keeps them out….

Maybe because it is a hierarchical UN thingy?


 'Participation' consists not only in what goes
> in, but perhaps more importantly in what comes out – whose interests are
> chiefly being served. So, I think we should disabuse ourselves of naïve
> notions of openness and participatory-ness of IG processes.

of this process, certainly, you should disabuse yourself of this
notion, but certainly not of all IG processes!

>
>
>
> Should close it now, I know. But cant resist mentioning what is the major
> set of comments on the second substantive theme of IGF Hyderabad
> -"Managing/Using the Internet"
>
>
>
> A fairly large number of people find the term 'Managing the Internet'
> misleading (???).

Because it is.  It is not possible to "manage" the Internet.

It must be the same set which finds the term
> 'universalisation' confusing,

Why MUST it be? Apples n oranges, IMHO.


but they are clearly the dominant voice out
> here.
>
>
>
> "One comment indicated that that the term "Managing the Internet" was
> misleading and recommended changing the theme to "Using the Internet" in
> order avoid giving a false impression that these session would question the
> legitimacy of the current Internet management arrangements.

Internet resources can be coordinated, even managed, but not the whole Internet.

This
> recommendation was also reflected in several other recommendations."
>
>
>
> And again this is the 'top' comment in this theme, and supported by many
> 'others'. I think these guys should have spoken up during the WSIS when IGF
> was set up as a policy deliberation forum

policy discussion forum, the word "deliberation" is not in the TA, but
the word "discuss" can be found many times.


 and TA also spoke of need of
> 'globally applicable public polices' etc ,

I've got to blow the whistle here again.  The TA does not say this at
all, it says:

70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation
should include the development of globally-applicable principles on
public policy issues associated with the coordination and management
of critical Internet resources.

In other words 'globally applicable public polices' is not at all the
same as "globally-applicable principles on public policy issues"!

 and should have said that this
> gives the impression that the legitimacy of existing policy making is being
> questioned. And if these people really see this connection logical then let
> them infer that WSIS has, through a major world level consensus, already
> strongly questioned the legitimacy of these bodies.
>
>
>
> And these people give the 'innocuous' replacement of 'managing the internet'
> term with 'using the internet'. Why cant we instead replace it with
> 'examining food security issues' or something. There is no connection
> whatsoever between the suggested theme' managing the internet' and suggested
> replacement 'using the internet'.

I agree with you on this one.  As Milton and I have found it's not
ALWAYS possible to be in disagreement ;-)

And I think this again is an extreme form
> of agenda rigging.
>
>
>
> There are other great pieces out there – cultural diversity should be
> protecting by enhancing IP protection and such… with no counter views at
> all. So much for open, participatory, inclusive, people-centric and
> development oriented forums, and their agenda setting processes.

You said it, not me ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May  9 16:45:37 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 23:45:37 +0300
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <5107615F-A620-4599-B19D-7D7E64B4739E@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
	 <5107615F-A620-4599-B19D-7D7E64B4739E@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805091345y5b778631kf01bbfa49d6180e7@mail.gmail.com>

Hullo Jeremy,

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
<snip>
> Yes I agree that the synthesis papers are becoming more and more one-sided;

What side is that exactly?

> the one before this was criticised heavily by ETNO on that count.  As for
> this one, my own contribution (on the IGF's Web discussion space) is all but
> undetectable in the synthesis paper; I might as well not have made it.  It
> did include similar comments to yours as to the inanity of the second theme
> being "Using the Internet".
>
> At present, there is little we can do about this partiality.  What it points
> to is the need for the Secretariat to be made accountable to the IGF
> community, at least by means of its appointment being confirmed by the
> Advisory Group.  This is so in most other Internet governance institutions,
> whose secretariats are appointed by their representative executive bodies
> (eg. the RIRs, most ccTLD registries, the GKP, ICANN, the IETF, ISOC, the
> ITU, the W3C, etc).
>
> As widely lauded as Marcus Kummer and Nitin Desai are, the idea that the
> Secretariat is a neutral organ cannot be maintained; they and their staff do
> have agendas of their own, one of which is to maintain the status quo
> against the prospect of another stand-off between the United States and the
> rest of the world on DNS oversight, and to prevent civil society from
> rocking the boat too hard on issues such as enhanced cooperation.

How do you know this? Is this an assertion of fact or mere speculation?


>
> Specifically as to the preparation of synthesis papers and reports of
> meetings, even if the Secretariat prepares them in draft, they should be
> approved by the Advisory Group or similar multi-stakeholder committee,

That's probably true.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat May 10 09:39:22 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 22:39:22 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To:  <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E37B9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080509060456.3913D67855@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <88BCA62A-2E94-4EA2-972D-3BA871DE5716@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E37B9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06240802c44ad3a59d40@[192.168.1.193]>

>Thanks, Avri,
>But it would still help for us to know more about the process by which
>these "synthesis" documents are made.


They reflect documents from earlier in the process, in this case 
three documents produced around the February consultations (a 
synthesis paper prepared from comments submitted to that 
consultation, a report of the February MAG meeting and draft 
programme of the Hyderabad meeting) and reflecting comments received 
since the February consultation on those documents and other issues.


>  In particular, are they passed by
>the MAG?


Generally no.  There's no time.  The documents are made either at the 
end call periods, for this paper May 1 (i.e. 1 week turn around) and 
in the case of papers for the IGF annual meetings translation's 
needed.  Time always too tight. They are always presented as the work 
of the secretariat.  They are input documents. The MAG discusses them 
as any other group/individual would.


>Are they reviewed and approved by Desai?


Reviewed, don't know.  Approved, unlikely. (I am guessing.)


>Are they published
>provisionally for public reaction and then revised?


What would be the point?

They are "rolling documents".  The point is for people to react to 
them at the upcoming consultation.


>Or do we have to
>scream bloody murder to get any change in them?


Of course you do :-)

The rest of us can send comments on the draft papers as they appear 
(as MAG members have been asking the caucus to do.) We can contribute 
to the discussion thread on the forum section of the IGF website 
<http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=433.0> (Jeremy has). 
People can submit comments to the secretariat ahead of the 
consultation next week, they can speak at the consultation, or they 
can send email comments and questions during the consultation (email 
addresses available soon).

Hope this helps,

Adam



>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  On 9 May 2008, at 02:04, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>  > "Universalization of the Internet" was unknown and possibly
>confusing.
>>
>>  and
>>
>>  > "Managing/Using the Internet"
>>
>>  I hesitate to say too much on his theme at this point, but would like
>>  to suggest that the use of the two comments throughout the document
>>  indicates that both terms are still being used.  this could be assumed
>>  to mean that the discussion and hence decision on which way the final
>>  program will go is still open.  from what i can tell we do not have
>>  consensus on the usage yet.
>>
>>  i am also assuming that there will be more opportunity to get comments
>>  into the secretariat that will be synthesized into later versions of
>>  this rolling document.  seeing papers from other organizations that
>>  support your view could still have an effect.
>>
>>  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 acm.org  Sat May 10 11:51:08 2008
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:51:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] synthesis paper was Re: [] MAG consultations
Message-ID: <FEBE515C-E08A-4834-84D4-3662732EF84B@acm.org>

Hi,

I have passed the concerns on to Markus, and expect he will have some  
response during the open consultations

The paper was prepared by the Secretariat. As I understand it, this is  
the normal process for groups within the UN framework - that the  
Secretariat produces a paper as an input into the discussions. As a  
consultant, I was part of the team and can give you my impressions on  
the structure of the paper.

The main purpose of the paper is to provide a single text as a basis  
to move forward. It combines elements from three different papers.

There are 2 interwoven sections.

- The parts of the paper that are reports of the work that has been  
done in the MAG so far, based on consultations and their discussions.   
The material  _outside the boxes_ was written based on the results of  
the MAG meetings and much of it was reviewed by the MAG at some point  
in the past, i.e. in the form of the separate papers that were  
incorporated into this paper.

- The material  _inside the boxes_ that is abstracted/synthesized from  
the contributions sent in to the secretariat in response to the calls.

In this case the synthesis from the 3 papers received this time was  
added to content pulled from the February synthesis paper.  As in all  
abstraction and summarization efforts some of the content, especially  
its richness is lost. That is why there is a note referring readers to  
the documents used as source and recommending that people read these  
papers if they are interested in the whole story, including the  
thought behind the comments.

Note: Unfortunately, the team overlooked the one contribution sent in  
as email to the discussion section, Jeremy's, but I think Markus will  
refer to it when introducing the paper next Tuesday.  I also expect  
this contribution's content will be referred to in future versions of  
the paper.

As mentioned in the introduction of the paper, it is a rolling  
document. I believe new comments, as well as new work by the MAG, will  
be reflected in the next version which is currently scheduled to come  
out next month.  So this is one way in which public opinion, in the  
form of comments during the consultations and future contributions  
sent to the secretariat, will be reflected in a future version of the  
paper.

As for the need 'to scream bloody murder' , as always your mileage may  
vary but as far as I can tell from my part time and occasional  
involvement with the Secretariat, they do listen and respond to  
comments.

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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Sun May 11 07:36:17 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 12:36:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi

probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?

myself and willie are covering for APC

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080511/964b8a8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May 11 11:47:35 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 21:17:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080511154807.CFC1AA6C4E@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Hi Karen

 

Sorry, am traveling and couldn't keep up.

 

Thanks for asking the question. I will be there. Would like to know who
else. Would be good to connect a little before the meeting as we always try
to do. It would be useful to divide work for representing the IGC at the
consultations.

 

I propose that we repeat the points we made on IGF format in Feb. It will
also be good to present the 4 workshops we proposes and justify them, as
well seek co-sponsorships, and support from everyone, etc.

 

We havent had time to discus the proposed themes in the draft program, but
if some parts of our feb statement are found of relevance in face of the
draft program already there, these can be re-asserted. 

 

As I requested earlier, IGC members may raise issues that they will like
represented during the consultations, we, those present, will do our best to
raise them .

 

Thanks

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] 
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 5:06 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations

 

hi

probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?

myself and willie are covering for APC

karen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080511/f6f2eecd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 11 15:52:44 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 16:52:44 -0300
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <48274E8C.4060004@rits.org.br>

Karen, as former "special advisor to the co-chair", it would be too 
expensive to go from Rio to Geneva just for the one-day plenary.

I hope a proposal to make the MAG mornings open and the afternoons 
closed gets approved. I also wonder if the secretariat would abandon the 
idea of a full day plenary (mostly a platform for lengthy and very 
generic, mostly useless discourses by official delegations) and instead 
have three days for the MAG, in which all mornings are open and afts closed.

frt rgds

--c.a.

karen banks wrote:
> hi
> 
> probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
> 
> myself and willie are covering for APC
> 
> karen
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun May 11 15:57:19 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 04:57:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>
 <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <p06240807c44d000ff9f4@[192.168.1.2]>

Just arrived in Geneva.

Adam


>hi
>
>probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
>
>myself and willie are covering for APC
>
>karen
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw  Sun May 11 17:02:28 2008
From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 00:02:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
Message-ID: <200805112102.AAA10296@safat.kisr.edu.kw>

Dear Karen:
I will be in Geneva Monday. I read Parminder E-Mail, If the IG caucus members would like to meet together and connect before or during the open consultations i will be more than happy to join. My arrival time to Geneva will be 5:30 pm. 

By the way is APC going to release an information society watch report like last year?

Regards,

Qusai



 --- Message Header --- 

The following message was sent by karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org> on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:36:17 +0100.

 --- Original Message --- 

> hi
> 
> probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
> 
> myself and willie are covering for APC
> 
> karen 
hi
> 
> probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
> 
> myself and willie are covering for APC
> 
> karen 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Sun May 11 17:23:03 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:23:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <200805112102.AAA10296@safat.kisr.edu.kw>
References: <200805112102.AAA10296@safat.kisr.edu.kw>
Message-ID: <20080511212400.2C65D4706EC@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi qusai

At 22:02 11/05/2008, Qusai Al-Shatti wrote:
>Dear Karen:
>I will be in Geneva Monday. I read Parminder E-Mail, If the IG 
>caucus members would like to meet together and connect before or 
>during the open consultations i will be more than happy to join. My 
>arrival time to Geneva will be 5:30 pm.
>
>By the way is APC going to release an information society watch 
>report like last year?

we will be, but not until the IGF in Hyderabad..

see you in geneva

karen


>Regards,
>
>Qusai
>
>
>
>  --- Message Header ---
>
>The following message was sent by karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org> on 
>Sun, 11 May 2008 12:36:17 +0100.
>
>  --- Original Message ---
>
> > hi
> >
> > probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
> >
> > myself and willie are covering for APC
> >
> > karen
>hi
> >
> > probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
> >
> > myself and willie are covering for APC
> >
> > karen
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080511/b96ce117/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon May 12 04:36:59 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 09:36:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0805120136n18069734n8d34d56314cd5015@mail.gmail.com>

Morning ,

Unfortunatly, I can't be in Geneva.

Baudouin

2008/5/11 karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org>:

>  hi
>
> probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
>
> myself and willie are covering for APC
>
> karen
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080512/f4bbf8d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon May 12 11:20:34 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 00:20:34 +0900
Subject: [governance] Remote Access - IGF Open Consultation, May 13
Message-ID: <p06240800c44e0e6f4cf8@[172.16.4.100]>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080513/fb17bb8f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Mon May 12 16:35:32 2008
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:35:32 -0300
Subject: [governance] Statement - IGF Remote Participation
Message-ID: <F2B3B26694EB49C2B44C83353CDBA414@Raquelnote>



Dear members of the Internet Governance Community,



We are a small group of interested IGF participants, who has joined together with the common concern to foster the possibility of more complete remote attendance at the upcoming IGF in Hyderabad, 2008. Our idea is to help to provide a service that will benefit the people who are unable to attend the IGF, which means that our work is based on a very practical approach. 



Our desire is to join forces with the initiatives from the Secretariat and from the Civil Society, especially with the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, seeking the convergence of similar ideas and helping to take them further. We look for ways to: 



1) Combine the webcast of the IGF with a platform for interaction, which would be available before, during and after the meeting. For that, we have been exploring the possibilities of different programs. 



2) To develop partnerships with regional organizations and communities with the aim to create local IGF hubs. These hubs would be local meetings, which would exhibit the webcast of the IGF as well as hold panels and roundtables, to discuss the themes of the IGF from a local perspective.  



We would like to invite all the IG Community to give us their opinion and to participate on this effort. We are developing our website and will let you know when it is ready for visits, meanwhile you can contact us at info at igfremote.com.



We also remind you all that the IGF Secretariat made available webcast and chat features on the last Open Consultations, and is planning to do the same on the next one (tomorrow). It's very important that civil society tests these tools and give some feedback. For further information, please see www.intgovforum.org 



We look forward to hearing from you.



IGF Remote Project



PS: Sorry if anyone received multiple messages...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080512/f0434d88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 12 17:24:59 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:24:59 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: UN media advisory: Global Forum on Access and
 Connectivity to meet in Kuala  Lumpur, 19-20 May
Message-ID: <01c001c8b476$a620fee0$6601a8c0@michael78xnoln>

-----Original Message-----
From: Edoardo Bellando [mailto:bellando at un.org] 
Sent: May 12, 2008 2:02 PM
To: unlisted-recipients:; no To-header on input
Subject: UN media advisory: Global Forum on Access and Connectivity to meet
in Kuala Lumpur, 19-20 May



 
United Nations 
MEDIA ADVISORY


GLOBAL FORUM ON ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY IN ASIA-PACIFIC 
TO MEET IN KUALA LUMPUR, 19-20 MAY 
Malaysia's Prime Minister Badawi to open annual meeting of GAID Strategy
Council on 18 May



New York, 12 May (UN Global Alliance for ICT and Development - GAID) — The
Global Forum on Access and Connectivity: Innovative funding for ICT for
Development, to be held in Kuala Lumpur on 19 and 20 May, will bring
together participants from different sectors to seek ways to expand
affordable connectivity, applications and services throughout the
Asia-Pacific region. 

Participants include Craig Barrett, Chairman of the United Nations Global
Alliance for ICT and Development and Chairman of Intel Corporation;  Amirzai
Sangin, Minister for Communications and IT of Afghanistan; Ali Abbasov,
Minister of Communications and IT of Azerbaijan; Benjamin Aggrey Ntim,
Minister of Communications of Ghana; Basem Fawaz Rousan, Minister of ICT of
Jordan; Maximus Ongkili, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation of
Malaysia; Haj Klai, Minister of Communication Technologies of Tunisia; Hessa
Al Jaber, Secretary-General of the ICT Supreme Council of Qatar; Hamadoun
Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU);
Sha Zukang, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social
Affairs; Ulf Pehrsson, Vice President for Government and Industry Relations,
Ericsson; and Ahmed Mahjoub, President and CEO, Tunisia Telecom. 

Forum sessions will focus on closing gaps in high-speed broadband
infrastructure in Asia and the Pacific; innovative funding mechanisms for IT
infrastructure; applications and services for multilingual communities;
extending IT connectivity to island States; and enhancing IT workforce
training, especially for young people. 

“As a region,” said Global Alliance Executive Coordinator Sarbuland Khan,
“Asia and the Pacific was amongst the early adopters of high-speed broadband
networks, and has invested in IT as the core infrastructure for modernizing
its economy and spurring innovation. While the region has some of the most
advanced broadband and IT-related technologies and policies, major gaps in
broadband infrastructure in the least developed countries continue to limit
investment, economic growth, employment and development”. 

Panellists will give their views on business opportunities and on ways to
boost investment in the region’s IT infrastructure, including through policy
and regulatory measures, innovative financing and public-private
partnerships. 

One meeting will focus on the initiative “New and Refurbished PCs for
Schools”, which aims at providing 500,000 new and refurbished computers for
10,000 schools, catering for 35 million students, by 2012. The initiative
has the support of the Virginia-based Consumer Electronics Association,
which has offered to work  with the Global Alliance to expand the supply of
new and refurbished computers and ensure that the end users are reached.
Intel, Cisco and other private companies are ready to take part in the
initiative. 

On 18 May, the Global Alliance’s Strategy Council and Steering Committee,
chaired by Craig Barrett, will meet to chart the Alliance’s next steps.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi will open the morning Strategy
Council meeting, and Malaysia’s Minister of Science, Technology and
Innovation Maximus Ongkili will open the afternoon Steering Committee
meeting. Participants will discuss the progress of the Alliance’s flagship
initiatives and regional networks, and will be briefed on new initiatives. 

The Global Forum coincides with the 2008 World Congress on Information
Technology (WCIT), which will bring to Kuala Lumpur from 18 to 22 May more
than 70 IT industry associations representing more than 90% of the world’s
IT market, together with civil society, academia and other experts. 

The Global Forum, to be held at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, is
organized by the Global Alliance for ICT and Development. The Global
Alliance seeks to mobilize the human, financial and technical resources
required to develop ICT infrastructure, services and applications across the
world. 

Contact: Enrica Murmura at the Global Alliance, Tel.: (1-212) 963-5913,
e-mail: murmura at un.org, or Edoardo Bellando, Tel.: (1-212) 963 8275, e-mail
bellando at un.org. Website: http://www.un-gaid.org. 

### 
!DSPAM:2676,4828b0a4227561289211071! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080512/801e7678/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00436.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3053 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080512/801e7678/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 12 17:28:26 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:28:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] U.S. Congress send letter on ICANN
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC845@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


Amidst growing concern about the future independence of ICANN, the
subcommittee of the U.S. Congress on Telecommunications and the Internet
has expressed opposition to any move by the Commerce Department to alter
its unilateral oversight of ICANN. Read about it at the IGP blog:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/5/11/3685901.html

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 May 12 21:14:34 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:14:34 -0700
Subject: [governance] Net neutrality bill introduced
Message-ID: <4828eb7a.3TQmatTl34AHLAi3%suresh@hserus.net>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Date: Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Subject: [NANOG] Lofgren has introduced Net Neutrality bill
To: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog at merit.edu>

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5994:
 
Overall, I think it's actually pretty good.  Paragraph 28(a)(2) and
especially when combined with 28(d)(2) have some interesting
potential unintended consequences, but, overall, it's short, to
the point, and, well written legislation in my opinion.
 
Owen
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG at nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 12 22:22:56 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] U.S. Congress send letter on ICANN
In-Reply-To: 7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC845@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu
Message-ID: <sympa.1210645031.46899.691@lists.cpsr.org>

Great article Milton, good job.

Ref:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/5/11/3685901.html
--

And in support of the Subcommittee of the U.S. Congress on Telecommunications
and the Internet concerns and underlying reasonings thier of, I am posting a
referance to a few sublime DARPA communications programs:

DARPA chief outlines expansive array of future networking projects
03/14/2008
Art. Ref.:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26035 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's incredible array of futuristic
research projects - everything from advanced network and communications
implementations to powerful laser and unmanned aircraft development as well as
developing techniques to help military personnel survive myriad dangerous
situations - was on display in a report delivered to the House Armed Services
Committee today by the agency's director, Tony Tether.

While Tether's testimony focused on the extremely broad areas of research and
development under DARPA's purview, what follows are some of the hottest
networking-related programs the agency is working on. Tether said DARPA has
many networking programs to help achieve its goal of linking tactical and
strategic users through networks that can automatically and autonomously form,
maintain, and protect themselves. 

DARPA is developing technologies for wireless tactical net-centric warfare that
will enable reliable, mobile, secure, self-forming, ad hoc networks among the
various echelons that make the most efficient use of available spectrum, he
stated. Among them: 

* To connect different tactical ground, airborne and satellite communications
terminals together, DARPA's Network Centric Radio System (NCRS) (formerly
Future Combat Systems-Communications) program developed a mobile, self-healing
ad hoc network gateway approach that provides total radio/network compatibility
on-the-move in any terrain - including the urban environment. NCRS has built
interoperability into the network, rather than having to build it into each
radio, so any radio can now be interoperable with any other. Today, using NCRS,
previously incompatible tactical radios - military legacy, coalition, and first
responder - can talk seamlessly among themselves and to more modern systems,
including both military and commercial satellite systems. 

* DARPA's neXt Generation (XG) Communications program has been developing
technology to make ten times more spectrum available by taking advantage of
spectrum that has been assigned but is not being used at a particular point in
time. XG technology senses the spectrum environment in real time and then, in
response, dynamically uses spectrum across frequency, space, and time -
searching and then using spectrum that is not busy at the moment. XG is
designed to resist jamming and not interfere with other users. XG was
demonstrated to the House Armed Services Committee on January 29. 

* Building on DARPA's XG and adaptive networking technologies, the Wireless
Network after Next (WNaN) program is developing technology and architecture to
enable an affordable and rapidly deployable communication system for the
tactical edge. The low-cost, highly-capable radio developed by WNaN will
provide the military with the capability to communicate with every Soldier and
every device at all operational levels. WNaN networking technology will exploit
high-volume, commercial components and manufacturing processes so that DoD can
affordably and continuously evolve the capability over time. DARPA is working
to put this affordable, tactical communications technology into the hands of
the warfighter as soon as possible. 

* Looking to bridge strategic and tactical networks with high-speed,
high-capacity communications network, the Department's strategic, high-speed
fiber optic network, called the Global Information Grid (GIG), utilizes an
integrated network whose data rate is hundreds to thousands of megabits per
second. To reach the theater's deployed elements, data on the GIG must be
converted into a wireless format for reliable transmission to the various
elements within the theater. 

* DARPA's Optical and Radio Frequency Combined Link Experiment (ORCLE) program
demonstrated a means for relaying GIG information to operational assets at the
edge - even if some high data-rate links are degraded by atmospheric or
physical obstructions - by teaming high-speed free-space optical communications
with high-reliability radio communications. Now, building on this DARPA is
planning to design, build, and demonstrate a prototype tactical network
connecting ground-based and airborne elements. The agency's goal is to create a
high data rate backbone network via several airborne assets that nominally fly
at 25,000 feet and are separated out to ranges of 200 kilometers, which
provides GIG services to ground elements up to 50 kilometers away from any one
node. 

* All-optical technology will be essential for ultra-fast strategic networks in
the future. A foundation for this will be integrating multiple functions onto a
single chip for all-optical routers with highly scalable capacity and
throughput. DARPA's Data in the Optical Domain-Network (DOD-N) program has
demonstrated a monolithically integrated, compact time buffer with waveguide
delays up to 100 nanoseconds. Temporarily storing high-speed data is a critical
power-consuming bottleneck for electronic routers, and this first demonstration
of an all-optical buffer is a significant step toward overcoming the storage
limitations for future data routers.

* For several years DARPA has been developing a miniature atomic clock -
measuring approximately one cubic centimeter - to supply the timing signal
should the GPS signal be lost. The Chip-Scale Atomic Clock will let a network
node, such as a Soldier using a Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System
(SINCGARS), maintain synchronous operation with the network for several days
after loss of the GPS signal. The CSAC microsystem derives its timing stability
by coupling a miniature laser, with associated electronic circuits, to an
atomic transition in a reference gas. Recently DARPA demonstrated an innovative
application of an alternative laser-atomic state interrogation scheme that
allows more than an order-of-magnitude increase in the system's stability. This
new scheme should enable an accuracy equivalent to the loss of less than a
tenth of a second error in timing over 100 years of operation. DARPA currently
has plans to insert a CSAC into a SINCGARS radio to demonstrate that it can
provide a time signal if GPS is not available, Tether said. 

* Computer worms that have never been seen before (zero-day worms) pose a
specific threat to military networks because they have been shown to exploit
thousands of computers using previously unknown network vulnerabilities in
seconds. The Dynamic Quarantine of Computer-Based Worm Attacks program has been
developing dynamic quarantine defenses for U.S. military networks against
large-scale malicious code attacks, such as computer-based worms, by creating
an integrated system that automatically detects and responds to worm-based
attacks against military networks, provides advanced warning to other DoD
enterprise networks, studies and determines the worm's propagation and
epidemiology, and immunizes the network automatically from these worms. The
final system will quickly quarantine zero-day worms to limit the number of
machines affected, as well as restore the infected machines to an
uncontaminated state in minutes, rather than hours and days, which is today's
state of the art. 

* The High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) program is the Federal
Government's flagship program in supercomputing. HPCS is pursuing the research,
development and demonstration of economically viable, high productivity
supercomputing systems for national security and industrial users. Phase III of
the High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) program, encompassing design,
development, and prototype demonstration, has been underway for a little more
than a year. The program will culminate in a prototype demonstration at the end
of 2010. 

* DARPA's "Slow Light" program is exploiting the quantum properties of
materials to control the speed of light and slow it to a tiny fraction of its
normal speed. Such tunable control will allow storing and processing of optical
information. This past year, the program demonstrated that slow light materials
can slow, stop, and store two-dimensional images. The ability to slow, store
and switch entire images before they are projected onto film or electronic
detectors could lead to intriguing methods of capturing images, and further
opens the door to novel approaches for ultrahigh- speed image processing. One
example of a material that exploits quantum effects is superconductors, which
conduct electricity with no energy loss due to electrical resistance.

* The Optical Lattice Emulator (OLE) program will construct a scaled artificial
material - an emulator - whose mathematical and physical behavior is governed
by the same underlying quantum mechanics as the superconductors of interest.
This emulator will use approximately 10 billion ultra-cold atoms held in a
lattice formed by laser beams. Controlling the states of the atoms in the
optical lattice will help DARPA understand properties directly related to the
desired behaviors of real materials. 

Tether said the need for DARPA's mission - to prevent the technological
surprise of the United States and create it for its adversaries by keeping our
military on the technological cutting edge - remains the agency's operating
principal.
---

-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  Mon May 12 22:36:08 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:36:08 -0700
Subject: [governance] U.S. Congress send letter on ICANN
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1210645031.46899.691@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1210645031.46899.691@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <20080513023608.GA22750@hserus.net>

Yehuda Katz [12/05/08 19:22 -0700]:
>And in support of the Subcommittee of the U.S. Congress on Telecommunications
>and the Internet concerns and underlying reasonings thier of, I am posting a
>referance to a few sublime DARPA communications programs:

Er, you ARE aware of what the D in DARPA stands for.

So why would they not work on defense related applications of 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Mon May 12 23:21:48 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 20:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] U.S. Congress send letter on ICANN
In-Reply-To: 20080513023608.GA22750@hserus.net
Message-ID: <sympa.1210648716.46899.426@lists.cpsr.org>

'D' as in Dumb Blonde. (my appologies ladies)
--

DARPA / ARPA --
Defense / Advanced Research Project Agency
DARPA's ability to adapt rapidly to changing environments and to seek and
embrace opportunities in both technology and in processes, while maintaining
the historically proven principles of the Agency, makes DARPA the crown jewel
in Defense R&D and a unique R&D organization in the world.

- DARPA Over the Years, August 1997.

DARPA (later ARPA) is the innovative R&D organization that funded the
development of the ARPANET.

In 1957, only twelve years after publication of Arthur C. Clarke's seminal
paper describing the idea of satellites, the Soviet Union launched the first
satellite, Sputnik I, beating the United States into space. This meant that the
USSR could theoretically launch bombs into space and then drop them down
anywhere on earth. The American military became highly alarmed.

In 1958, President Dwight Eisenhower appointed MIT President James Killian as
Presidential Assistant for Science and created the Advanced Research Projects
Agency (ARPA) to jump-start U.S. technology and find safeguards against a
space-based missile attack. The US military was particularly concerned about
the effects of a nuclear attack on their communications infrastructure, because
if they couldn't communicate, they wouldn't be able to regroup or respond,
thereby making the threat of a first strike by the Soviet Union more likely. 

To meet this need, ARPA established the IPTO in 1962 with a mandate to build a
survivable computer network to interconnect the DoD's main computers at the
Pentagon, Cheyenne Mountain, and SAC HQ. As described in the following pages,
this initiative led to the development of the ARPANET seven years later, and
then to the NSFNET and the Internet we know today. ARPA also funded some of the
early networking research done by Lawrence Roberts, who later became the
ARPANET Program Manager.

ARPA had unique authorization and direction to make quantum jumps in technology
using any means they believed appropriate. For example, they had the unusual
mandate to use research before it had been peer-reviewed, since the peer-review
process prevented mistakes but slowed down progress. It worked -- within 18
months of its creation ARPA developed and deployed the first US satellite.

>From its inception ARPA significantly funded many US university research labs,
and as early as 1968 had a close relationship with Carnegie-Mellon University,
Harvard University, MIT, Stanford University, UCB, UCLA, UCSB, University of
Illinois, and the University of Utah, as well as leading industry labs
including Bolt Beranek and Newman, Computer Corporation of America, Rand, SRI,
and Systems Development Corporation. Most of these labs were connected to the
ARPANET soon after it was developed in order to enable cross-fertilization of
research activity.

In the early 1970's the word "Defense" was prefixed to the name, and ARPA
became known as DARPA. By the late 1990's, DARPA reported to the Director for
Defense Research and Engineering and had about 250 staff and a budget of US$2
billion. A typical project was funded with between ten and forty million
dollars over a period of four years, and drew support from several consultants
and one or two universities. An excerpt from a 1997 description of the
organization is provided below:

DARPA's mission has been to assure that the U.S. maintains a lead in applying
state-of-the-art technology for military capabilities and to prevent
technological surprise from her adversaries. 

The DARPA organization was as unique as its role, reporting directly to the
Secretary of Defense and operating in coordination with but completely
independent of the military research and development (R&D) establishment. 

Strong support from the senior DoD management has always been essential since
DARPA was designed to be an anathema to the conventional military and R&D
structure and, in fact, to be a deliberate counterpoint to traditional thinking
and approaches.

- DARPA Over the Years, August 1997.
 

DARPA program managers have always had complete control over program funding,
unprecedented flexibility in management capabilities, and direct responsibility
for making their program a success. A description of the role of a DARPA
program manager from 1977 is provided below. Send in your application today. 

The DARPA environment is one of the most demanding and electric in the
government. It is where people who want to make a difference come to invest 4
years in public service as a program manager. 

The ideal program manager is technically deep, with excellent but eclectic
technology taste, usually seasoned by five or more years of accomplishment in
industry, the military, or academia. An outstanding technical foundation is
needed to triumph over unforeseen problems or to pounce on opportunities at the
frontiers of knowledge. 

The program manager must be able to integrate, innovate, and readily accept new
ideas proposed by others. The program manager formulates a vision for the
program, positions and advocates the program within the context of DARPA's
overall mission, charts a course for the near- and long-term accomplishments
necessary to reach the program objectives, and manages all technical,
procurement, and financial aspects of the program. The ideal program manager
must complement technical excellence with management and leadership skills,
including people skills, public speaking skills, project management experience,
careful financial management skills, the ability to make timely decisions, and
a sense of controlled urgency. 

No one in government has more constructive power than a DARPA program manager.
Spend four years at DARPA as part of your career. It will change the way you
view the world. It will be a service to your technical community and to the
Nation. You can move the world, if you stand in the right place. 


- Working As A DARPA Manager, Original from August 1977.

Ref.:
http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_darpa.htm
---
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue May 13 05:04:24 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:04:24 +0800
Subject: [governance] Consultation meeting chat
Message-ID: <0A5A3EA8-0498-448B-BFAD-BC1F1C328314@Malcolm.id.au>

I haven't been able to access the chat of the open consulation meeting  
- I don't know if anyone else has.  I sent a message about this to the 13May_englishq at intgovforum.info 
  address but haven't heard back.

If there are others who wish to join a chat then there is a working  
alternative chat at http://igf-online.net.  To join, click on "Chat/ 
Webcast" on that page then "Community chat" which gives details and a  
Web-based interface.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue May 13 05:37:26 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 18:37:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] Consultation meeting chat
In-Reply-To: <0A5A3EA8-0498-448B-BFAD-BC1F1C328314@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <0A5A3EA8-0498-448B-BFAD-BC1F1C328314@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <p06240806c44f10c961b5@[172.16.4.112]>

Hi,

the meeting started late (badging problems -- very long lines at UN 
security) and then Internet in the room went down.

Is the remote access feed (video/audio) OK now?

Sorry, I don't know anything about the chat, but problems might have 
been related to the general Internet problem in the room (now 
hopefully fixed.)

Adam



>I haven't been able to access the chat of the open consulation 
>meeting - I don't know if anyone else has.  I sent a message about 
>this to the 13May_englishq at intgovforum.info address but haven't 
>heard back.
>
>If there are others who wish to join a chat then there is a working 
>alternative chat at http://igf-online.net.  To join, click on 
>"Chat/Webcast" on that page then "Community chat" which gives 
>details and a Web-based interface.
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue May 13 05:38:54 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:38:54 +0300
Subject: [governance] Consultation meeting chat
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c44f10c961b5@172.16.4.112>
References: <0A5A3EA8-0498-448B-BFAD-BC1F1C328314@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <p06240806c44f10c961b5@172.16.4.112>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805130238s742f86c6g8f9a51e0410f4e36@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  the meeting started late (badging problems -- very long lines at UN
> security) and then Internet in the room went down.
>
>  Is the remote access feed (video/audio) OK now?

no



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue May 13 05:52:20 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 18:52:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] remote access - mix of English and French audio
Message-ID: <p06240807c44f13b911f9@[172.16.4.112]>

I've been told you can hear both the English and French audio feeds 
on the video stream.  I'm sorry, this seems to be a problem with 
input from the UN translator's system to the team running the remote 
access feed.  They will try to fix it, but they expect it to take a 
while so will try over the lunch break.  Sorry for this.

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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue May 13 06:17:31 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:17:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] Who's attending? MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <ecb172de0805120136n18069734n8d34d56314cd5015@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080509055050.70EB4E0493@smtp3.electricembers.net>	 <20080511113638.41AD346E6AC@mail.gn.apc.org> <ecb172de0805120136n18069734n8d34d56314cd5015@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48296ABB.3090305@wzb.eu>

Hi, I am in Geneva as well.
jeanette

BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE wrote:
> Morning ,
> 
> Unfortunatly, I can't be in Geneva.
> 
> Baudouin
> 
> 2008/5/11 karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org <mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org>>:
> 
>     hi
> 
>     probably a bit late to ask this - but who's going to be in geneva?
> 
>     myself and willie are covering for APC
> 
>     karen
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
> 
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> Tél:+243998983491
> email:b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
> http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue May 13 06:57:04 2008
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 06:57:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Consultation - live feed for Mac
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c44f13b911f9@[172.16.4.112]>
References: <p06240807c44f13b911f9@[172.16.4.112]>
Message-ID: <a062408cfc44f23ae12af@[192.168.0.101]>

If you are on Mac, you may have figured out by now.  If not, one of 
the fine folks doing the feed finally uncovered what is necessary. 
Instead of the current VLC release, 0.8.6f, go back to the earlier 
0.8.6d

David
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 13 08:08:41 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 05:08:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: <incom> "Revisiting Internet Governance in a
 human/objects network"  (June 25, Paris) (Modified by Geert Lovink)
Message-ID: <036001c8b4f2$4680a360$6601a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Looks interesting,

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info
[mailto:incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info] On Behalf Of Programme de
recherche Vox Internet
Sent: May 9, 2008 1:03 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: <incom> "Revisiting Internet Governance in a human/objects network"
(June 25, Paris) (Modified by Geert Lovink)


> Journée d'étude du 25 juin 2008
>
>  "Revisiting Internet Governance in a human/objects network"
>
> "Réévaluer la gouvernance Internet dans un réseau d'humains et
> d'objets"
>
> Date : le mercredi 25 juin, de 9h à 18h
>
> Lieu : Le Meditel, 28 bd Pasteur (Paris, 15ème)
>
>
> Intervenants (communications en anglais, discussion en français) :
>
> Rafaël Capurro (fondateur de l'International Review of Information
> Ethics, université de Stuttgart)
>
>             The Quest for Intercultural Information Ethics
>
>             À la recherche d'une éthique interculturelle de
> l'information
>
>
> Soenke Zehle (Transcultural Media Studies Project, université de la
> Sarre)
>
>             From Civil Society to Technologies of the Common - Social
> Software and Collaborative Ethics
>
>             De la société civile aux 'technologies du commun ' :
> logiciel social et éthique collaborative
>
>
>
> Jean-Gabriel Ganascia (Lip6, CNRS/université Paris 6)
>
>             An Artificial Intelligence Based Formalization of Robot
> Ethics
>
>             Intelligence artificielle et éthique des robots :
> proposition de modélisation
>
>  
>
> Mireille Hildebrandt (Center for Law, Science, Technology & Society
> Studies, université libre de Bruxelles)
>
>             The impact of digitalisation on the linear structure of
> modern law
>
>             Impact de la numérisation sur la structure linéaire du
> droit moderne
>
>  
>
> Entrée libre
>
> Pour des raisons de place, inscription obligatoire avant le 17 juin
> 2008 :
>
> contact at voxinternet.org (ou par simple réponse à ce courriel)
>
> Editeur : Vox Internet - Programme de recherche soutenu par l'ANR 
> http://www.voxinternet.org Pour modifier votre abonnement, veuillez 
> vous rendre à l'adresse suivante




_______________________________________________
incom-l mailing list
incom-l at incommunicado.info
http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/incom-l


!DSPAM:2676,48295eba227564612670956!

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 13 09:16:05 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:16:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Morning sessions of IGF consultation
Message-ID: <5DB6FA92-8BF8-49D9-A509-1B59BE35244D@psg.com>



The whole storage is now available from the following urls:

http://live.polito.it/files/igf_morning_fr_20080513.mpeg
http://live.polito.it/files/igf_morning_en_20080513.mpeg


There may be some sound problems at various points.  but thanks to the  
team from Torino.

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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue May 13 10:23:50 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 23:23:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation coming to an early closed
In-Reply-To: <5DB6FA92-8BF8-49D9-A509-1B59BE35244D@psg.com>
References: <5DB6FA92-8BF8-49D9-A509-1B59BE35244D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240814c44f53898925@[172.16.4.112]>

The consultation's ended.

Recordings and transcript of the morning session available now, and 
the afternoon no doubt available soon.

Comments on the consultation helpful for MAG discussions tomorrow.

Thanks,

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ronda.netizen at gmail.com  Tue May 13 11:55:36 2008
From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:55:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] U.S. Congress send letter on ICANN
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1210648716.46899.426@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1210648716.46899.426@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <ecb9aa080805130855h28ce0f9ape381c16c6abe581@mail.gmail.com>

I did an article about ARPA for its 50th anniversary and the development of
computer science and networking within ARPA.

Please note that the Information Processing Techniques Office (the computer
science research office created and headed by JCR Licklider in 1962) was to
do basic research in computer science, not to create some military
development.

Later in the agency's history when the pressure was on to do military
specific related research, this was fought by the researchers and then led
to the end of the IPTO.

See my article about this.

http://taz.de/blogs/netizenblog/2008/02/12/arpas-50th-anniversary-and-the-internet-a-model-for-basic-research/

ARPA's 50th Anniversary and the Internet: a Model for Basic Reseearch


[This article was written for Futurezone and appears in German at its
website. Futurezone is the Technology web site for Orf, Austria's national
public broadcast media.The url is
http://futurezone.orf.at/hardcore/stories/253842/ ]

 I- Sputnik Gives Birth to Important New Research Advances

On October 4, 1957, the world was greeted with a surprise. There was beeping
from a man- made object orbiting the earth.  This was Sputnik, a 184 pound
object the size of a basketball which was to be the catalyst for important
new changes in our world. One of these changes would be a significant new
means of communications connecting people and computers around the world.

How a small satellite orbiting our globe on October 4, 1957 would, 50 years
later, make possible the digitized information and communications network we
call the Internet, is a significant story. The subject of this story is,
however, not the Internet itself. The subject of the story is the research
agency which made it possible to create the Internet and other significant
computer science developments. This research agency, the Advanced Research
Projects Agency, or ARPA as it is more commonly known, was born 50 years ago
in February 1958.

This birthday celebration is a fitting time to look back to how ARPA began
and to ask what this history can teach us about the nature of the kind of
research ARPA was created to support and about the institutional form needed
to support such research. Since it can be argued that important achievements
of ARPA supported research include the Internet of today, and other
significant computer science advances, understanding the origins and
development of ARPA can set a foundation to understand the origins of the
Internet and other computer advances of the past fifty years.

II - Some Background - The actual events of the birth of ARPA.

It is generally recognized that the creation of ARPA was a direct response
to the launch of the world's first orbiting space satellite by the Soviet
Union. This was a significant part of the US government's response to the
Soviet's surprise achievement. But the mandate of ARPA was not restricted to
space research. The US Department of Defense directive number 5105.15 dated
February 7, 1958 established "an agency for the direction and performance of
certain advanced research or development projects." (1) For reasons to be
explained shortly, the director of the agency was to report directly to the
Secretary of Defense. Congressional authorization followed as part of a bill
enacted by the U.S. Congress on February 12, 1957.

III - The Original Mandate

While ARPA was originally created to support space related research, this
function was soon moved to a civilian agency so that space research would
have no apparent military connection.  ARPA was thus left to support more
general purpose research.

James Killian, who became the President of MIT (1948-1959), and the Special
Assistant for Science and Technology to President Dwight D. Eisenhower
(1957-1959), is credited with establishing the environment in which ARPA was
conceived. Killian had testified at several congressional hearings in the
period before Sputnik, advocating for the importance of basic research for
the US Department of Defense (DOD). At those hearings, he and others argued
that it was critical to have research that would explore unknown areas in
order that the DOD not fall behind in the military and basic research areas
of its competition with the Soviet Union. Killian believed that new weapons
and weapon systems would require a different form of organization from the
traditional roles and missions that the Department of Defense was accustomed
to.

Killian described how the great technological successes of the U.S. in World
War II such as radar, the proximity fuse, and the creation of nuclear
weapons were due to how the scientific and technical community functioned
even during the war. He drew attention to "the free-wheeling methods of
outstanding academic scientists and engineers who had always been free of
any inhibiting regimentation and organization. . . Every great research
laboratory," Killian proposed, "must strive to have men of this kind and to
provide an environment analogous to that of the educational institution if
it is to be really creative."

Killian believed that the new approaches and weapons systems could not be
spawned by the Military Services themselves. Instead they could only be
expected to "originate in the creative basic research that takes place in
the universities and other institutions where fundamental new ideas are most
likely to be generated."

Killian argued to Congress that what was needed was research that would be
directed toward new concepts and new principles, rather than toward
producing pieces of military hardware. He describes why creating an
environment to support basic research is of critical importance to the
military. "It is" he said, "the yet unanticipated, not yet conceived
discoveries which may determine our military strength tomorrow, and we must
provide the environment from which such discoveries are most likely to
come."

Killian turned the usual argument about basic research and its relevance to
the military on its head. Instead of arguing to support research with
military objectives, he was arguing for the support for fundamental
scientific research because otherwise there would be no possible
breakthroughs that could provide relevant research. Unless the DOD provided
support for such generalized research, Killian proposed it would fall
hopelessly behind its Soviet rival. Similarly, the prestige which came with
being seen as preeminent in science and technology was critical for the U.S.
to maintain its standing in the world.

Articulating this viewpoint explicitly, Killian explained, "The future of
the United States, to an extraordinary degree, is in the hands of those who
probe the mysteries of the atom, the cell and the stars. Especially is this
true of that tiny part of our creative effort which we inadequately term
basic research."

Before Sputnik, Killian and his colleagues who argued with him for the
primacy for the military of basic research had not been able to have their
advice taken seriously. The launch of Sputnik transformed this situation
fundamentally.

A report written in 1975 to analyze ARPA's successes, known as the Barber
Report after its main author Richard Barber, depicted ARPA as having been
"spawned in an environment where basic research was equated with military
security." Research of a general nature was argued to be the "wellspring"
for the advanced ideas critical in the long run for the military.

The Barber Report explains that this was the changed environment in which
the U.S. President at the time, Dwight Eisenhower, supported the creation of
ARPA. Just after the launch of Sputnik, Killian was asked by Eisenhower to
recommend how the centrality of basic research could be implemented. Killian
recommended the creation of an agency that would support 'centers of
excellence', flexible funding, and long term stable environments for
researchers. It would be a place where failures were to be seen as expected,
to be learned from, and not, as problems.

This was the vision inspiring the creation of ARPA. Fortunately, in the
field of computer science, this vision found champions and the result was
that the computer research at ARPA succeeded in revolutionizing the way that
computers would be used in the world.

IV - The Politics of ARPA

Part of Eisenhower's motive for supporting the creation of ARPA and its
orientation toward basic research, however, had another rationale. This had
to do with the problem of rivalry between the different branches of the
Military Services.  Eisenhower was opposed to this rivalry, but the
Department of Defense having been created only ten years earlier, in 1947,
was still relatively weak in terms of its control over the three different
branches of the services. The creation of ARPA could help to centralize the
research done by the DOD.

The Services competed vigorously with each other in a number of areas, such
as for funding and assignment of new projects. As a result, the creation and
placement of ARPA in the DOD administrative hierarchy became a source of
contention between the services and the Secretary of Defense.

Similarly, since the results of applied research would affect the future of
each of the branches of the services, the plan to put applied research in
ARPA met with opposition. In recognition of this political nature of applied
research, the Secretary of the Air Force James H. Douglas said that he was
prepared to concede ARPA a role in basic research but "once you move over
the poorly defined line to applied research, I would object." Such pressures
defined the environment in which ARPA began and developed in its early
years. (2)

V - Computer Science is Nourished by ARPA

Despite these obstacles, the computer science research begun at ARPA in
1962, is a significant fulfillment of the objectives set out by Killian as
the vision for the new agency. In order to understand ARPA's operations, it
is helpful to look at the role played by the Director. There have been
several different directors in the course of ARPA's existence.

The period from 1961-1963 when Jack Ruina was the director is cited as a
particularly formative period. "The Ruina era's legacy," the Barber Report
explains, "was particularly important with regard to the ARPA style. It set
the precedent of a civilian scientists-director and was characterized by
delegation of considerable independence to the technical officers,
recruitment of strong technical office directors, minimization of
bureaucratic functions and limitation of central program management
controls, and stress on quality of staff and contractors."

During the 31 month period that Ruina was the director of ARPA, the computer
science program was launched. Computer science was assigned to ARPA as an
area for research in June 1961. The program was originally called Command
and Control Research (CCR). The objective of this research was to "provide a
better understanding of organizational, informational and man-machine
relationships and research on information processing techniques and methods,
and maintenance of a general purpose computer facility."

Since in 1961 this was all a new area of research, the services didn't have
established programs and there were thus fewer constraints on the creation
and development of computer science. Ruina soon recruited J.C.R. Licklider,
a highly regarded researcher with expertise in psychoacoustics, who had done
considerable research on human-machine interaction and computer modeling of
the brain's perception of sound. Licklider believed that advances in command
and control aspects of computing would require fundamental advances in the
field of computer science. He was particularly interested in developing the
area of interactive computing. (3)

Ruina gave Licklider a free hand to create a computer science research
program. Just as Killian would have advised, Licklider began by creating a
set of 'centers of excellence' at several universities, each of which would
focus on a particular area of computing research. He changed the emphasis
which had been on command operational studies, war game scenarios and
command system laboratories to research in time-sharing systems and
interactive computing, computer graphics, improved computer languages and
computer networking.

By early 1964, the name of the computer science research office at ARPA was
changed to the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), to reflect
the changes in the research program Licklider had introduced. Among the
centers of excellence IPTO set up were one at MIT, known as Project MAC, and
one at Carnegie Mellon. Licklider writes that one center was to "lead the
effort to achieve balance in information technology, to harness the logical
powers of computers to make it truly available and useful to men." The other
was to "lead the effort to achieve fundamental understanding to develop the
theoretical bases of information processing." (4) Subsequently other centers
of excellence were set up, including one focusing on computer graphics.

Though computer networking was part of Licklider's plan for the research to
develop the computer science field, during his first two year period at
ARPA, it was too early for this area of research. The program initiated by
Licklider in computer science led to ARPA being recognized throughout the
field, according to the Barber Report, "as being the main supporter and
perhaps the most important force in the course of the US and probably world
history in the computer…."

The goal of Licklider's program in computer science was to develop the
computer in ways other than number crunching. This led to what became
perhaps the most significant area of computer development at IPTO. This
involved the recognition that the computer could be a communication device,
which led to the research developing packet switching and the ARPANET, and
subsequently, the research creating TCP/IP and the Internet .

Describing the paradigm change represented by computer networking research,
Michael Hauben writes:

"Fundamental to the ARPANET, as explained by the [ARPANET] Completion
Report, was the discovery of a new way of looking at computers. The
developers of the ARPANET viewed the computer as a communications device
rather than only as an arithmetic device. This new view made building the
ARPANET possible. This view came from the research conducted by those in
academic computer science. Such a shift in understanding the role of the
computer is fundamental to advancing computer science. The ARPANET research
has provided a rich legacy for the further advancement of computer science
and it is important that the significant lessons be learned and studied and
used to further advance the study of computer science." (5)

This perspective shift in how to view the computer, especially in looking at
the computer as a communication device was the basis for the area of
research which represents probably the greatest achievement of IPTO and of
ARPA.

This is the area of research first developing the ARPANET and subsequently
providing the practical and conceptual leadership for the creation and
spread of the Internet. (6)

VI - ARPA and the Struggle Within

Critical to an understanding of ARPA, however, is the understanding that the
struggle both within the agency itself and in the creation and support for
the Agency was a continual battle between the objectives and practices of
the military and the objectives and practices of the researchers who were
working for the IPTO or in its programs. By the 1970s, the researchers at
IPTO were subjected to serious constraints.

A directive issued on March 23, 1972 by the Department of Defense replaced
ARPA's 1959 charter with a new Charter. The name of ARPA was changed to the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This removed the agency
from its original position within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The administrative placement of the agency was changed from where it had
been placed to protect it from the competition of the Services. At the time
there was a concern that the separation of ARPA from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense would weaken it and its independence.

Describing the significance of moving ARPA from the protection of the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, Charles Herzfeld, the director of ARPA from
1965-1967, writes:

"But one fundamental change to DARPA is more important than all these
vicissitudes. In 1958, the body was designed to be an agent for change in
the Department of Defense, located in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense. In the 1960s, it became stronger and more effective in this role.
Sometime in the 1970s or '80s, the agency shrank to being an agent for
change in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, which focuses on building and buying weapons." (7)

Licklider, too, was disturbed by the changes that occurred at ARPA when he
returned as director of IPTO in January 1974. He found that much had
changed. He observed that, "there was really much less opportunity to
initiate things…At that time [the ARPA director-ed] had a fixed idea that a
proposal is not a proposal unless its got milestones. I think that he
believed that the more milestones, the better the proposal….Milestones had
to be written into the proposal and it was completely rewritten." (8)

In an email message to IPTO researchers in April 1975, Licklider writes:

"[A] development in ARPA that concerns me greatly - and will, I think, also
concern you. It is the continued and accelerating (as I perceive it)
tendency on the part of the ARPA front office, to devalue basic research and
the effort to build an advanced science/technology base in favor of applied
research and development aimed at directly solving on an ad hoc basis some
of the pressing problems of the DOD." (9)

The Barber Report notes again the importance of the organizational placement
of the Agency if the agency is to be able to support basic research. "During
its first decade, ARPA's leadership tended to feel that the Agency was a
unique organization in DOD with special ties to the Secretary and hence
somehow immune from the impact of many forces and decisions that shape the
activities of the Services and other parts of the Department."

By the post 1967 period, this protected position was changing, so that ARPA
was more constrained than it had been previously.

The authors of the Barber Report are not surprised by the changes, but they
are struck by how little attention is paid to them and "the relative lack of
discussion or debate" among the leadership of the Department of Defense.

With the celebration of the 50th birthday of ARPA, there is renewed
attention being paid to reviewing the experience of this agency. Such a
review of the experience of ARPA is pregnant with the lessons of the
importance of government support for basic research.

The past 50 years provides a set of achievements demonstrating the
importance of the initial vision that Killian and other scientists in the
1950s advocated regarding the importance of basic research.

These voices, however, were ignored until Sputnik was launched. Only then
did the necessity for the federal support for basic research become
inescapable. ARPA and its initial orientation toward supporting basic
research is the product of these events.

The organizational structure of ARPA made possible the creation of the
computer science research office within ARPA begun by Licklider. That office
has demonstrated the importance of the support for basic research in the
field of computer science. The IPTO supported a general area of research,
one with a far reaching impact. The achievements of this research office
were not specific defense related applications, nor were the goals narrowly
aimed at defense specific applications. If this reality is not recognized,
however, it is possible to mistakenly attribute significant computer science
achievements to defense specific objectives.

A common and widespread myth exists that the Internet has grown out of a
defense specific objective, i.e. from the goal to create a computer network
that could survive a nuclear war. This is a striking example of how a false
narrative can spread and gain public credence.

This false narrative finds its roots in the failure to understand that ARPA
was not an agency created for defense specific applications, but to support
the basic research which would lead to new concepts and ideas.

Only then could the new conceptual frameworks become available in general,
and in that context also for defense related developments. If one starts
with the goal of creating defense specific developments, however, the
research is limited and not able to go beyond what is known at the time.

In summing up this relationship between ARPA, IPTO and basic research, Alan
Perlis, one of the IPTO researchers explains: "We owe a great deal to ARPA
for not circumscribing the directions that people took in those days. I like
to believe that the purpose of the military is to support ARPA and the
purpose of ARPA is to support research." (9)
Notes

1- The Barber Report says that the Secretary of Defense actually issued the
directive creating ARPA on February 4, 1957. Unless otherwise indicated
quotes are from the report. The url for the Report
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA154363

2- Barber Report, p. I-27

3-This was a period when computer use generally required that the programmer
bring a program typed on punch cards to a computer facility, to return
several hours later to get a print out of the program's results. This form
of computing was known as batch processing.

4-Ronda Hauben, "Computer Science and the Role of Government in Creating the
Internet" Part III  "Centers of Excellence and Creating Resource Sharing
Networks"
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/centers-excellence.txt

5-Michael Hauben, "Behind the Net: the Untold History of the ARPANET and
Computer Science", in "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
Internet"
. http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x07

6- Ronda Hauben, "The Internet: On its International Origins and
Collaborative Vision (A Work in Progress)"
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/birth_tcp.txt

7- Charles Herzfeld, "How the change agent has changed", "Nature", vol 451,
January 24, 2008, p. 404.

8- Thomas Bartee, ed. Expert Systems and Artificial Intelligence,
Indianapolis, 1988, p. 225. See Ronda Hauben, "Computer Science and the Role
of Government in Creating the Internet" ARPA/IPTO (1962-1986): Creating the
Needed Interface, p. 19.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/arpa_ipto.txt

9- Adele Goldberg, "The History of Personal Workstations", ACM, N.Y. 1988,
p. 129.  See also Ronda Hauben,"The Birth and Development of the ARPANET" in
"Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet", John Wiley and Sons, 1997,.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x08

>




-- 
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080513/0b3e5fae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From avri at acm.org  Tue May 13 16:30:56 2008
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 22:30:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Footage for 20080513
References: <4829AB6A.6000406@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <BC4B9041-9117-4F8A-87FD-936ED49AE3ED@acm.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero at gentoo.org>
> Date: 13 May 2008 16:53:30 GMT+02:00
>
> Raw links
>
> http://live.polito.it/files/igf_morning_fr_20080513.mpeg
>
> http://live.polito.it/files/igf_morning_en_20080513.mpeg
>
> http://live.polito.it/files/igf_afternoon_fr_20080513.mpeg
>
> http://live.polito.it/files/igf_afternoon_en_20080513.mpeg
>
> Everybody please fetch your copy while is still warm =)
>
> lu

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 14 04:30:01 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 10:30:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee meeting
 (Kuala Lumpur, 18-20 May 2008)
Message-ID: <200805140828.m4E8SsXP029287@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

This is a brief up date on the up coming GAID Strategy Council and Steering
Committee meeting taking place in Kuala Lumpur on 18 May 2008, followed by a
GAID Global Forum on Access and Connectivity and Innovative Funding for ICT
for Development on 19 and 20 May 2008.

 

Find attached for your information the annotated agenda of the Strategy
Council meeting and of the Global Forum.

 

Registration

Some of you might encounter difficulties to register for this event. If the
registration webpage does not open in your browser, please register by
directly contacting the GAID Secretariat and indicate:

 

Name and first name:

Title:

Organisation:

Address:

Telephone:

Fax:

E-mail address:

Stakeholders' group (Civil Society, private sector, etc.):

 

A list of hotels available in the surrounding of the KL Convention Centre is
also available as an attachment.

 

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:  <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org> philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080514/bd211e23/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Program GF on Access and Connectivty as of 3May 2008.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 163840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080514/bd211e23/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Annotated Agenda Strategy Council as of 9 May 2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 157961 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080514/bd211e23/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Kuala Lumpur Hotels.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 148992 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080514/bd211e23/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed May 14 08:07:04 2008
From: rusdiah at rad.net.id (Rudi Rusdiah)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:07:04 +0700
Subject: [governance] GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee
 meeting
In-Reply-To: <200805140828.m4E8SsXP029287@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
References: <200805140828.m4E8SsXP029287@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <482AD5E8.1020901@rad.net.id>

*/ Registration /*

Some of you might encounter difficulties to register for this event. If 
the registration webpage does not open in your browser, please *register 
by directly contacting the GAID Secretariat* and indicate:

 

/ Name and first name: Rusdiah, RUDI /

/ Title:  Chairman /

/ Organisation:  APWKomitel (Association Of Community Internet Center) /

/ Address:  Golden Plaza A37-A39, Jl RS Fatmawati 15, Jakarta. 12420. 
Indonesia /

/ Telephone: 6221- 75900091-93 ; 62 81 677 4203 /

/ Fax: 6221 -7507545 /

/ E-mail address:  rusdiah at rad.net.id  /

/ Stakeholders' group (Civil Society, private sector, etc.): /

Note: APWKomitel Our association is accreditated  @ WSIS Tunis 2005
 

A list of hotels available in the surrounding of the KL Convention 
Centre is also available as an attachment.

 

Best regards,

 

Philippe



CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>  
>
> This is a brief up date on the up coming GAID Strategy Council and 
> Steering Committee meeting taking place in Kuala Lumpur on 18 May 
> 2008, followed by a GAID Global Forum on Access and Connectivity and 
> Innovative Funding for ICT for Development on 19 and 20 May 2008.
>
>  
>
> Find attached for your information the annotated agenda of the 
> Strategy Council meeting and of the Global Forum.
>
>  
>
> */ Registration /*
>
> Some of you might encounter difficulties to register for this event. 
> If the registration webpage does not open in your browser, please 
> *register by directly contacting the GAID Secretariat* and indicate:
>
>  
>
> / Name and first name: /
>
> / Title: /
>
> / Organisation: /
>
> / Address: /
>
> / Telephone: /
>
> / Fax: /
>
> / E-mail address: /
>
> / Stakeholders' group (Civil Society, private sector, etc.): /
>
>  
>
> A list of hotels available in the surrounding of the KL Convention 
> Centre is also available as an attachment.
>
>  
>
> 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 * 
> <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org>*
> Website: www.ngocongo.org <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org>  *
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080514/128ae1de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed May 14 08:37:13 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 14:37:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee
 meeting
In-Reply-To: <482AD5E8.1020901@rad.net.id>
References: <200805140828.m4E8SsXP029287@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
	 <482AD5E8.1020901@rad.net.id>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0805140537m69c6a0fha46afc1aa2a547fc@mail.gmail.com>

* Name and first name:SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *

* Title: COORDINATOR *

* Organisation:CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTURE (CAFEC)member of AFRICAN
CIVIL SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SOCIETY (ACSIS) *

* Address:BOULEVARD DU 30 JUIN IMMEUBLE ROYAL ENTREE A 7e NIVEAU GOMBE *

* Telephone:+243998983491 *

* Fax: *

* E-mail address:b.schombe at gmail.com <address%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com> *

* Stakeholders' group (Civil Society, private sector, etc.):CAFEC is
accredited to WSIS Geneva 2003 *




2008/5/14 Rudi Rusdiah <rusdiah at rad.net.id>:

>  * Registration *
>
> Some of you might encounter difficulties to register for this event. If
> the registration webpage does not open in your browser, please *register
> by directly contacting the GAID Secretariat* and indicate:
>
>
>
> * Name and first name: Rusdiah, RUDI *
>
> * Title:  Chairman *
>
> * Organisation:  APWKomitel (Association Of Community Internet Center) *
>
> * Address:  Golden Plaza A37-A39, Jl RS Fatmawati 15, Jakarta. 12420.
> Indonesia *
>
> * Telephone: 6221- 75900091-93 ; 62 81 677 4203 *
>
> * Fax: 6221 -7507545 *
>
> * E-mail address:  rusdiah at rad.net.id  *
>
> * Stakeholders' group (Civil Society, private sector, etc.): *
>
> Note: APWKomitel Our association is accreditated  @ WSIS Tunis 2005
>
>
> A list of hotels available in the surrounding of the KL Convention Centre
> is also available as an attachment.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Philippe
>
>
> CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>
>
> This is a brief up date on the up coming GAID Strategy Council and
> Steering Committee meeting taking place in Kuala Lumpur on 18 May 2008,
> followed by a GAID Global Forum on Access and Connectivity and Innovative
> Funding for ICT for Development on 19 and 20 May 2008.
>
>
>
> Find attached for your information the annotated agenda of the Strategy
> Council meeting and of the Global Forum.
>
>
>
> * Registration *
>
> Some of you might encounter difficulties to register for this event. If
> the registration webpage does not open in your browser, please *register
> by directly contacting the GAID Secretariat* and indicate:
>
>
>
> * Name and first name: *
>
> * Title: *
>
> * Organisation: *
>
> * Address: *
>
> * Telephone: *
>
> * Fax: *
>
> * E-mail address: *
>
> * Stakeholders' group (Civil Society, private sector, etc.): *
>
>
>
> A list of hotels available in the surrounding of the KL Convention Centre
> is also available as an attachment.
>
>
>
> 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 * <wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org>*
> Website: www.ngocongo.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
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080514/629f4f8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed May 14 09:20:52 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 14:20:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
Message-ID: <482AE734.7080907@wzb.eu>

Hi,

this afternoon the MAG will discuss main sessions. What should be the 
focus, how should they be structured? The goal is to create a more 
direct link between workshops and main sessions. This means that we try 
to pick a few workshops that would feed in directly into subsequent main 
sessions. The focus on main sessions may thus have an impact on the 
workshops related to them.

If there are concrete suggestions for the focus on main sessions, 
particularly for the main session on critical Internet resources, please 
let us know.

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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed May 14 15:18:31 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 05:18:31 +1000
Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <482AE734.7080907@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <016b01c8b5f7$562c1be0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Jeanette,

I always thought it was time to mature into the concept of topic streams.
Most people attending IGF are likely to be primarily interested in one main
theme or another

I think each theme chosen could have a continual running thread throughout
the conference up until closing sessions - indeed for a lot of people
specializing in say security or access this would allow more in depth
analysis in their chosen areas. If this was done with plenary updates on
specific subjects staggered, people could chose to stay with themes or go
back to overview sessions - or of course chop and change (may not have
explained that well but I could draw it out if necessary)

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 May 2008 23:21
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this afternoon the MAG will discuss main sessions. What should be the
> focus, how should they be structured? The goal is to create a more
> direct link between workshops and main sessions. This means that we try
> to pick a few workshops that would feed in directly into subsequent main
> sessions. The focus on main sessions may thus have an impact on the
> workshops related to them.
> 
> If there are concrete suggestions for the focus on main sessions,
> particularly for the main session on critical Internet resources, please
> let us know.
> 
> 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date:
> 13/05/2008 07:31
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date: 13/05/2008
07:31
 

____________________________________________________________
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 mueller at syr.edu  Wed May 14 15:58:13 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:58:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <016b01c8b5f7$562c1be0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <482AE734.7080907@wzb.eu> <016b01c8b5f7$562c1be0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC853@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

There is much to commend in your comment about streaming together of
related topical areas, Ian. However, we also want to avoid sticking
everyone into specialist silos. As my colleague John Mathiason likes to
point out, it's easy to be "for" security, openness, diversity, access.
The tough part is when you have to sacrifice or limit one for the other;
for example, making access more expensive because of security
precautions, or trading off some security for openness, etc. 

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: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
> Subject: RE: [governance] from the MAG meeting
> 
> Jeanette,
> 
> I always thought it was time to mature into the concept of 
> topic streams.
> Most people attending IGF are likely to be primarily 
> interested in one main
> theme or another
> 
> I think each theme chosen could have a continual running 
> thread throughout
> the conference up until closing sessions - indeed for a lot of people
> specializing in say security or access this would allow more in depth
> analysis in their chosen areas. If this was done with plenary 
> updates on
> specific subjects staggered, people could chose to stay with 
> themes or go
> back to overview sessions - or of course chop and change (may not have
> explained that well but I could draw it out if necessary)
> 
> 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 May 2008 23:21
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > this afternoon the MAG will discuss main sessions. What 
> should be the
> > focus, how should they be structured? The goal is to create a more
> > direct link between workshops and main sessions. This means 
> that we try
> > to pick a few workshops that would feed in directly into 
> subsequent main
> > sessions. The focus on main sessions may thus have an impact on the
> > workshops related to them.
> > 
> > If there are concrete suggestions for the focus on main sessions,
> > particularly for the main session on critical Internet 
> resources, please
> > let us know.
> > 
> > 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date:
> > 13/05/2008 07:31
> > 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release 
> Date: 13/05/2008
> 07:31
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed May 14 19:17:34 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:17:34 +1000
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
Message-ID: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Folks, attached is the report from the 2008 Nominating Committee.

 

Shortly I will compile the information on candidates and forward it to Avri.
It therefore should be available on the website within a week or so.

 

Thanks particularly to Robert Guerra who preceded me as Chair, but also to
Guru, Hakik and Rudi for dedicated and excellent work in this process, which
is now complete.

 

However the report does raise several issues and recommendations which this
list should consider.

 

 

 

 

 

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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 14/05/2008
16:44
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080515/54b9efae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Nomcom report_2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 216860 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080515/54b9efae/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 14 19:42:38 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 16:42:38 -0700
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <87727C4B-2A0A-48C3-85B6-612BBC50DF23@internet.law.pro>

Thanks, Ian, and all NomComm members. Nice work.

      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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu May 15 04:43:37 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:43:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC853@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <482AE734.7080907@wzb.eu> <016b01c8b5f7$562c1be0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC853@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <482BF7B9.4090707@wzb.eu>

There is a tendency towards "threadening" of main session and workshop 
topics. But there is also a continuous drive towards intersecting or 
merging of major themes such as access and capacity building or 
security, privacy and openness under new headers. So, it seems the MAG 
is aware of the pros and con of both approaches.

jeanette

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> There is much to commend in your comment about streaming together of
> related topical areas, Ian. However, we also want to avoid sticking
> everyone into specialist silos. As my colleague John Mathiason likes to
> point out, it's easy to be "for" security, openness, diversity, access.
> The tough part is when you have to sacrifice or limit one for the other;
> for example, making access more expensive because of security
> precautions, or trading off some security for openness, etc. 
> 
> 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: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:19 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
>> Subject: RE: [governance] from the MAG meeting
>>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> I always thought it was time to mature into the concept of 
>> topic streams.
>> Most people attending IGF are likely to be primarily 
>> interested in one main
>> theme or another
>>
>> I think each theme chosen could have a continual running 
>> thread throughout
>> the conference up until closing sessions - indeed for a lot of people
>> specializing in say security or access this would allow more in depth
>> analysis in their chosen areas. If this was done with plenary 
>> updates on
>> specific subjects staggered, people could chose to stay with 
>> themes or go
>> back to overview sessions - or of course chop and change (may not have
>> explained that well but I could draw it out if necessary)
>>
>> 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 May 2008 23:21
>>> To: Governance Caucus
>>> Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this afternoon the MAG will discuss main sessions. What 
>> should be the
>>> focus, how should they be structured? The goal is to create a more
>>> direct link between workshops and main sessions. This means 
>> that we try
>>> to pick a few workshops that would feed in directly into 
>> subsequent main
>>> sessions. The focus on main sessions may thus have an impact on the
>>> workshops related to them.
>>>
>>> If there are concrete suggestions for the focus on main sessions,
>>> particularly for the main session on critical Internet 
>> resources, please
>>> let us know.
>>>
>>> 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date:
>>> 13/05/2008 07:31
>>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG. 
>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release 
>> Date: 13/05/2008
>> 07:31
>>  
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 04:48:48 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:48:48 +1000
Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <482BF7B9.4090707@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <00e801c8b668$8789d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve and who you are trying to
attract.

If you want to make progress in specific areas they have to be solid enough
for governments to justify sending specialists. Then progress might be made.
If you keep generalizing they will send generalists who will write nice
reports. We are not attracting heads of state so we need to have something
specific enough for key public servants to attend.



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: 15 May 2008 18:44
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: Re: [governance] from the MAG meeting
> 
> There is a tendency towards "threadening" of main session and workshop
> topics. But there is also a continuous drive towards intersecting or
> merging of major themes such as access and capacity building or
> security, privacy and openness under new headers. So, it seems the MAG
> is aware of the pros and con of both approaches.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > There is much to commend in your comment about streaming together of
> > related topical areas, Ian. However, we also want to avoid sticking
> > everyone into specialist silos. As my colleague John Mathiason likes to
> > point out, it's easy to be "for" security, openness, diversity, access.
> > The tough part is when you have to sacrifice or limit one for the other;
> > for example, making access more expensive because of security
> > precautions, or trading off some security for openness, etc.
> >
> > 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: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:19 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
> >> Subject: RE: [governance] from the MAG meeting
> >>
> >> Jeanette,
> >>
> >> I always thought it was time to mature into the concept of
> >> topic streams.
> >> Most people attending IGF are likely to be primarily
> >> interested in one main
> >> theme or another
> >>
> >> I think each theme chosen could have a continual running
> >> thread throughout
> >> the conference up until closing sessions - indeed for a lot of people
> >> specializing in say security or access this would allow more in depth
> >> analysis in their chosen areas. If this was done with plenary
> >> updates on
> >> specific subjects staggered, people could chose to stay with
> >> themes or go
> >> back to overview sessions - or of course chop and change (may not have
> >> explained that well but I could draw it out if necessary)
> >>
> >> 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 May 2008 23:21
> >>> To: Governance Caucus
> >>> Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> this afternoon the MAG will discuss main sessions. What
> >> should be the
> >>> focus, how should they be structured? The goal is to create a more
> >>> direct link between workshops and main sessions. This means
> >> that we try
> >>> to pick a few workshops that would feed in directly into
> >> subsequent main
> >>> sessions. The focus on main sessions may thus have an impact on the
> >>> workshops related to them.
> >>>
> >>> If there are concrete suggestions for the focus on main sessions,
> >>> particularly for the main session on critical Internet
> >> resources, please
> >>> let us know.
> >>>
> >>> 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date:
> >>> 13/05/2008 07:31
> >>>
> >> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >> Checked by AVG.
> >> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release
> >> Date: 13/05/2008
> >> 07:31
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date:
> 14/05/2008 16:44
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 14/05/2008
16:44
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 06:25:39 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 13:25:39 +0300
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Folks, attached is the report from the 2008 Nominating Committee.

thanks for the report.

I was troubled and very surprised by the following:

"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations
Another matter that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time
employees of existing Internet governance organizations – irrespective
of their civil
society credentials. Some members believe that the issue is really of
primary identity of
the person – if a person is a fulltime employee of IG organization
then though they may
have progressive views, they can not be said to be having CS
credentials. Again there
was no consensus on this issue within the NomCom – but there were seen
to be potential
conflicts of interest involved for employees and this was combined
with the precedent
already established within CS Caucus to not accept nominations from full time
employees of existing Internet governance organizations in arriving at
our decision.
However, at the same time, there was a strong feeling we should work
closely with these
bodies and build relationships as with other stakeholder groups. We
believe they should
be welcome and encouraged to participate on the CS mailing lists.
However, a future
NomCom, if IGC does not adopt a formal position on this in the
meantime, might wish to
include in its call for candidates that employees of internet
governance organizations will
not be considered for endorsement by CS Nomcom because of potential conflicts of
interest (but are encouraged of course to separately apply for
representation on MAG)"

A number of questions arise from this.

1. How do we define "internet governance organizations"??
Do we make a list and vote on it?

2. How about those folks who work 100% of their time on IG issues for
CS organisations?  Don't they have the same conflict of interest?  In
other words, these people have a certain agenda or viewpoint they are
working from, just as is assumed employees of IG bodies do.  Why don't
we exclude them?

3. How about part-time employees or consultants of IG bodies don't
they have the same potential conflict of interest?

4. I wasn't aware that we had set a precedent on this, when was this?
IIUC, we as a caucus nominated Paul Wilson of APNIC as a possible MAG
member, no?  So this precedent is the opposite of what the NomCom
recalled.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 15 08:22:02 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 05:22:02 -0700
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN> <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080515122202.GA31417@hserus.net>

McTim [15/05/08 13:25 +0300]:
>2. How about those folks who work 100% of their time on IG issues for
>CS organisations?  Don't they have the same conflict of interest?  In

Oh, they are assumed to have "progressive" views .. and so by the same
token the existing "internet governance organizations" have retrograde
views, I expect.

	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 lists at privaterra.info  Thu May 15 08:36:59 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 08:36:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN> <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DA0385B6-1D10-4D23-BEDE-EEB5DEF8ECE7@privaterra.info>

I hope that as a result of the report, the IGC starts the discussion -  
much needed - to make the point that those involved in Internet  
Governance Organizations (such as RIR's)  are good to have in the  
caucus, are seen as CS, and including them in our structures and other  
bodies is not only good - but strategic .


regards

Robert



On 15-May-08, at 6:25 AM, McTim wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>  
> wrote:
>> Folks, attached is the report from the 2008 Nominating Committee.
>
> thanks for the report.
>
> I was troubled and very surprised by the following:
>
> "Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations
> Another matter that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are  
> full time
> employees of existing Internet governance organizations – irrespective
> of their civil
> society credentials.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 08:49:16 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 05:49:16 -0700
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <DA0385B6-1D10-4D23-BEDE-EEB5DEF8ECE7@privaterra.info>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN> <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com> <DA0385B6-1D10-4D23-BEDE-EEB5DEF8ECE7@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <20080515124916.GA32553@hserus.net>

Oh, but they are seen as part of the "technical community" and therefore,
ipso facto, the enemy, "them" etc.

Too bad.

Robert Guerra [15/05/08 08:36 -0400]:
> I hope that as a result of the report, the IGC starts the discussion -  
> much needed - to make the point that those involved in Internet  
> Governance Organizations (such as RIR's)  are good to have in the  
> caucus, are seen as CS, and including them in our structures and other  
> bodies is not only good - but strategic .
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Thu May 15 09:08:31 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:08:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <20080515124916.GA32553@hserus.net>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN> <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com> <DA0385B6-1D10-4D23-BEDE-EEB5DEF8ECE7@privaterra.info> <20080515124916.GA32553@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <69F9CAC0-D6C8-4C59-B3BE-C1C2C2171ECA@privaterra.info>

not for any one person to decide - but, the larger IGC.

Robert


On 15-May-08, at 8:49 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> Oh, but they are seen as part of the "technical community" and  
> therefore,
> ipso facto, the enemy, "them" etc.
>
> Too bad.
>
> Robert Guerra [15/05/08 08:36 -0400]:
>> I hope that as a result of the report, the IGC starts the  
>> discussion -  much needed - to make the point that those involved  
>> in Internet  Governance Organizations (such as RIR's)  are good to  
>> have in the  caucus, are seen as CS, and including them in our  
>> structures and other  bodies is not only good - but strategic .

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 10:05:52 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 16:05:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] TR: Information for Participants of the Third Meeting
 for WSIS Action Line C5 (22-23 May 2008)
Message-ID: <200805151404.m4FE4jSu020059@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

For your information, on Action Line C-5 (22-23 May 2008).

 

Best, 

 

Philippe

 

  _____  

De : strategy at itu.int [mailto:strategy at itu.int] 
Envoyé : jeudi, 15. mai 2008 14:06
Cc : csd at itu.int
Objet : Information for Participants of the Third Meeting for WSIS Action
Line C5 (22-23 May 2008)

 

Dear Participants, 
As participants of the Third WSIS Action Line C5 Facilitation Meeting
scheduled for 22-23 May in Room K at ITU, this message is to provide you
with some basic information about the structure of the meeting and also how
you can actively participate during the two days.

The draft Agenda and practical information about the meeting can be found
at:  <http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/WSIS/3rdMeeting.html>
http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/WSIS/3rdMeeting.html

Day 1:  22 May:  The goal is to keep the discussions as interactive as
possible, allowing a maximum of 4-5 minutes per speaker at the beginning of
the session for opening remarks based on the theme and issues for that
session. We will then move directly into a dynamic discussion amongst the
panellists and Q & A with the audience. In this spirit we will not be using
Power Point or audio visual presentations but panellists are encouraged to
send to  <mailto:gca at itu.int> gca at itu.int their presentations or reports as
reference/background material.  We would therefore encourage you to take a
look at the themes and issues for each session and prepare your questions,
answers or views.  

Day 2:  23 May:  The focus will be on presentations (PowerPoint and Reports)
on initiatives undertaken by various stakeholders. Day 2 will also include
discussions on strategies for identifying WSIS C5 targets, mechanisms for
their measurement and reporting.  A draft proposal from ITU to be used as
basis for discussions on identifying targets for C5, discussions on
measuring progress and reporting will be posted under Session 6 of the
agenda. 

Even though you might not be a Moderator, Panellist or Speaker for both days
of the meeting, you are encouraged to submit any document or presentation
that you consider relevant to the discussions or to advancing the goals of
WSIS Action Line C5. 

The sessions during the two days will be streamed live (video and audio) via
the Internet in MPEG4/ITU-T H264 format and also archived for future
reference.  

The entire event will be in English only.  Except for the agenda and
brochures, there will be no paper documents distributed during this meeting.

The meeting room has WiFi access so you are encouraged to bring your
computers. 

Best regards, 

 

Alexander NTOKO 
Head, Corporate Strategy Division 
Focal Point, WSIS Action Line C5 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
Place des Nations 
CH-1211 Geneva 20 
Switzerland 
Email: gca at itu.int 
Web:  <file:///\\www.itu.int> www.itu.int 
Tel:  +41 22 730 5525 
Fax: +41 22 730 6453 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080515/84edefab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From garth.graham at telus.net  Thu May 15 10:34:05 2008
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:34:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <00e801c8b668$8789d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <00e801c8b668$8789d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <838525CE-07E6-41E5-9770-65B4F08FFA98@telus.net>

To be "Internet-like" the process that identifies the "right" threads  
needs to be emergent ... something where the threads survive an  
extended process of open negotiation, distributed collaboration and  
iterative refinement.  IGF's agenda should be a slice-in-time  
reflection of that process and/or dialogue  - and NOT a  
classificatory and hierarchical process.  And any true "specialist,"  
inside governments or out, will have a known reputation based on the  
quality of participation (i.e. they will be living inside communities  
of interest and practice).  In this case, a "centre" really will not  
hold.

.... and, as I re-state something that seems to me to be simple,  
obvious and familiar, it occurs to me that I don't really get the  
question ... and should therefore keep my mouth shut!
GG

On 15-May-08, at 1:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> If you want to make progress in specific areas they have to be  
> solid enough
> for governments to justify sending specialists. Then progress might  
> be made.
> If you keep generalizing they will send generalists who will write  
> nice
> reports. We are not attracting heads of state so we need to have  
> something
> specific enough for key public servants to attend.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Sent: 15 May 2008 18:44
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
>> Subject: Re: [governance] from the MAG meeting
>>
>> There is a tendency towards "threadening" of main session and  
>> workshop
>> topics. But there is also a continuous drive towards intersecting or
>> merging of major themes such as access and capacity building or
>> security, privacy and openness under new headers. So, it seems the  
>> MAG
>> is aware of the pros and con of both approaches.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 10:39:41 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:39:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] from the MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <838525CE-07E6-41E5-9770-65B4F08FFA98@telus.net>
References: <00e801c8b668$8789d3f0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <838525CE-07E6-41E5-9770-65B4F08FFA98@telus.net>
Message-ID: <482C4B2D.6020703@wzb.eu>

Hi, to make it more concrete: Right now, there are three topics for a 
session on critical internet resources on the table: IPv4/IPv6, Internet 
Governance arrangements (to be filled with concrete issues, the pending 
end of the JPA has been mentioned) and spectrum allocation.

jeanette

Garth Graham wrote:
> To be "Internet-like" the process that identifies the "right" threads 
> needs to be emergent ... something where the threads survive an extended 
> process of open negotiation, distributed collaboration and iterative 
> refinement.  IGF's agenda should be a slice-in-time reflection of that 
> process and/or dialogue  - and NOT a classificatory and hierarchical 
> process.  And any true "specialist," inside governments or out, will 
> have a known reputation based on the quality of participation (i.e. they 
> will be living inside communities of interest and practice).  In this 
> case, a "centre" really will not hold.
> 
> .... and, as I re-state something that seems to me to be simple, obvious 
> and familiar, it occurs to me that I don't really get the question ... 
> and should therefore keep my mouth shut!
> GG
> 
> On 15-May-08, at 1:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> If you want to make progress in specific areas they have to be solid 
>> enough
>> for governments to justify sending specialists. Then progress might be 
>> made.
>> If you keep generalizing they will send generalists who will write nice
>> reports. We are not attracting heads of state so we need to have 
>> something
>> specific enough for key public servants to attend.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>> Sent: 15 May 2008 18:44
>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] from the MAG meeting
>>>
>>> There is a tendency towards "threadening" of main session and workshop
>>> topics. But there is also a continuous drive towards intersecting or
>>> merging of major themes such as access and capacity building or
>>> security, privacy and openness under new headers. So, it seems the MAG
>>> is aware of the pros and con of both approaches.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 10:44:58 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 17:44:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <DA0385B6-1D10-4D23-BEDE-EEB5DEF8ECE7@privaterra.info>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>
	 <f65fb55e0805150325k1b47474fy6ce4a2565cc22d22@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DA0385B6-1D10-4D23-BEDE-EEB5DEF8ECE7@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805150744w3e7ffb55qf117682f250966f9@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Robert Guerra <lists at privaterra.info> wrote:
> I hope that as a result of the report, the IGC starts the discussion - much
> needed - to make the point that those involved in Internet Governance
> Organizations (such as RIR's)  are good to have in the caucus, are seen as
> CS, and including them in our structures and other bodies is not only good -
> but strategic .

Amen!!

And how about those who sit on the Boards of such organisations?

I imagine the set of folk on this list AND on a IG org board is a non-zero set.

I also imagine that if we extrapolate the NomCom's decision to all
those who work on IG issues, whether paid or voluntary, full or
part-time, we could nominate very, very few from this list to the MAG.
;-?

-- 
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  Thu May 15 10:55:49 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:55:49 -0700
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805150744w3e7ffb55qf117682f250966f9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <033201c8b69b$c40d9630$6601a8c0@michael78xnoln>


I'm assuming that the overt attempt was to deal with potential for "conflict
of interest" in a rather tricky area and where the guidelines wouldn't
necessarily be immediately obvious.

But as I understand "conflicts of interest" they have to do with the
potential for a direct financial effect from a decision (including
influencing decisions) resulting from participation in a specific decision
making process.  

I would have thought, based on that (rather awkward) definition that it
would be clear that folks working for technical companies might be in a
conflict of interest on the MAG (something certainly to be dealt with by
others than CS who would by excluding those folks from their "nomination" be
transferring responsibility for that decision to others) and would not
exclude techies working for not for profit technical organizations and or
those working for NGO's/CS organizations whether or not they are engaged in
IG related activities in their working life.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: May 15, 2008 7:45 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra
Subject: Re: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report


On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Robert Guerra <lists at privaterra.info>
wrote:
> I hope that as a result of the report, the IGC starts the discussion - 
> much needed - to make the point that those involved in Internet 
> Governance Organizations (such as RIR's)  are good to have in the 
> caucus, are seen as CS, and including them in our structures and other 
> bodies is not only good - but strategic .

Amen!!

And how about those who sit on the Boards of such organisations?

I imagine the set of folk on this list AND on a IG org board is a non-zero
set.

I also imagine that if we extrapolate the NomCom's decision to all those who
work on IG issues, whether paid or voluntary, full or part-time, we could
nominate very, very few from this list to the MAG. ;-?

-- 
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 gurstein at gmail.com  Thu May 15 13:39:23 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:39:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805150953se6d5f29q3c0df9d5718695ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03a101c8b6b2$9da8f9f0$6601a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Further to my earlier note...

Let's assume for the moment that words mean what we say they mean (not
always the case but anyway...

Stakeholder: a person, group, organization, or system who affects or can be
affected by an organization's actions (wikipedia)

Okay, so in the "Multi"stakeholder process who are the "stakeholders" and
what are their "stakes" i.e. what is it that they do that will be "affected
by an organization's (the IGF's) actions"?

Well the obvious stakeholders are 
	1. government who want to keep (acquire) control over the Internet
for themselves (i.e. keep it out of the hands of others)
	2. the private sector who want to keep the Internet open and
structurally robust for commerce
	3. and... Well maybe the techies who want to keep the Internet
functioning at its highest performance from a technical perspective
	4. and... Well Civil Society but what is it that Civil Society wants
or to put it another way what is it that CS agrees on that would become its
position in relation to how they are "affected" or would "effect" the
operations etc. of the Internet

In a very interesting side conversation Milton (and I believe Wolfgang) both
agreed to the proposition that CS was a "category" (think about the age
categories in a census) rather than a "group" ie. Something with a common
set of interests which might be pursued through CS attempting to affect or
responding to the attemtpts of others to affect the Internet.

If that is the case then I would suggest that in fact CS is not by any
definition that I would understand a "stakeholder" parallel to the other
"stakeholders" but rather as folks like Milton and Suresh seem to be
arguing, a concatenation of all those who don't fit into the other
stakeholder categories--not a very satisfactory position I would think and
not a very strong position to take along to the MAG.

On the other hand I think there is the position that CS at some level is
attempting to affect and manage the effects of/on the Internet in support of
what we might want to call "the public interest" (we could call it "the
public good" as well...

There is a long and deep literature defining the "public interest/public
good" unfortunately (momentarily) ignored in many jurisdictions but it seems
to me that if CS is in fact a "stakeholder" in the IGF process it is
precisely through representing in that forum
notions/aspirations/ideals/norms of the "publc interest/public good". 

And although there may be some variation in how the "public good" is defined
specifically, it would seem to me (and a considerable number of people
agree, whatever the distribution of opinion on this elist) that there is
enough there, there in the notion of the "public good" to in fact define a
"stake", interpret the "effects" and attempt to "affect the operations and
outcomes" of the IGF in support of that position and those norms.

That is, CS in the IGF is about the pursuit of the public good (in the
context of the Internet) or it is about nothing at all.

Best to all,

Michael Gurstein

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: May 15, 2008 9:54 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report


On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I'm assuming that the overt attempt was to deal with potential for 
> "conflict of interest" in a rather tricky area and where the 
> guidelines wouldn't necessarily be immediately obvious.
>
> But as I understand "conflicts of interest" they have to do with the 
> potential for a direct financial effect from a decision (including 
> influencing decisions) resulting from participation in a specific 
> decision making process.
>
> I would have thought, based on that (rather awkward) definition that 
> it would be clear that folks working for technical companies might be 
> in a conflict of interest on the MAG

I think that's a very big might (as in only a slight possibility).

I think that an employee of Cisco or Google has an almost zero potential
conflict of interest by sitting on the MAG.  What possible decisions could
the MAG make that would for example affect the share price of one of these
corporations?

In fact, I think that the opposite is probably more likely to be true, in
that CS folk are MORE likely to have a conflict of interest in MAG
decisions.

Consider this example, CS org "A" is funded to do a variety of things, one
of which has been increasingly IG "stuff", in particular WSIS and
post WSIS, the IGF.   Org "A" staff person "B" has been the point
person for IG work done by "A".  "B" gets on the MAG, and obviously in
interested in the development of the Internet for the greater good, but also
obviously has a vested interest in seeing that "their" issues get
discussed/have workshops, etc.  If not, their advocacy is not as effective
as promised to the donor, which may result in fewer grants for this type of
work being given to "A", which also means that "B" may be out of work, or
have to shift focus away from IG issues.

Now, I'm not pointing the finger at any person or CS org here, rather trying
to point out that we are trying to split some rather fine hairs here, and to
mix metaphors, the NomCom has started us down a very slippery slope, one
that I suspect that no one who recognizes themselves as "B" really wants to
be on.


 (something certainly to be dealt with by
> others than CS who would by excluding those folks from their 
> "nomination" be transferring responsibility for that decision to 
> others)

I'm not getting you, are you saying that CS would shift the responsibility
to the PS?

I think there are folk on this list who work for the PS, which is fine, as
our charter says:

"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who
subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the
same rights and duties."

So I think that the CS IGC could via it's NomCom nominate someone who worked
full time for a PS company to represent it on the MAG, at least, I would
hope so!

and would not
> exclude techies working for not for profit technical organizations and 
> or those working for NGO's/CS organizations whether or not they are 
> engaged in IG related activities in their working life.
>

So the person who runs the mailserver for CPSR (for example) is ok, but the
person who runs the rootservers for Verisign (for example) is not?  I must
have missed something, please share your views further on who could be
excluded and who could not.

I am thinking that by our charter, no one should be excluded.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Thu May 15 14:12:49 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:12:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a centrally
 controlled network ?
Message-ID: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info>

A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled  
Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet  
into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know  
more about it?

http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47


regards

Robert

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu May 15 15:10:26 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:10:26 -0700
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
 centrally controlled network ?
In-Reply-To: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <03da01c8b6bf$56c41940$6601a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Thanks very very much for this Robert... 

Quite coincidentally next week I'm participating (as a technical "expert")
in a conference in Hungary towards the development of a European (and
global) Telecentre Movement.
http://www.chic.hu/index.php?p=75&conid=75&lang=en 

The conference has the high level backing of the Hungarian Government among
others and I believe it likely that the EU Minister (Vivien Redding)
responsible for telecommunications will be giving a key note address...

So we in the conference will certainly have something interesting to talk to
her (and among ourselves) about... 

To be continued....

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] 
Sent: May 15, 2008 11:13 AM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a centrally
controlled network ?


A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled  
Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet  
into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know  
more about it?

http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47


regards

Robert

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Thu May 15 16:18:30 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 16:18:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition - May08
 Teleconference
References: <9DEF1A77-1175-489D-9CBA-4C1EA5E1C8A6@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <662E1449-4942-4B7B-849D-A0D6EE0E4504@privaterra.info>

Dear IGC:


The IGF Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition had their monthly  
teleconference today. An Audio archive of the meeting has been  
uploaded to the internet archive. It is available @

http://www.archive.org/details/IgfBillOfRightsDynamicCoalition-May08Teleconference


Regards

Robert

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Thu May 15 16:22:30 2008
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 22:22:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
 centrally
In-Reply-To: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info>
References: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <482C9B86.2070208@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Robert Guerra schrieb:
> A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled 
> Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet 
> into a centrally controlled network.

To me, it sounds very generic and empty. You can't really tell what 
they're up to from this declaration, except for getting more funding from 
the EU.

But if you look closer, there are of course scary attempts to re-invent 
the internet going on everywhere, ranging from identification 
infrastructures which would make anonymous surfing real hard, to protocols 
which distribute bandwidth based on the users' past behaviour, or the 
music industry trying to establish a mandatory traffic monitoring scheme 
on the ISPs' side to block copyrighted content.

A good start on this trend is Jonathan Zittrain's latest book "The Future 
of the Internet and how to stop it", online full text here: 
<http://yupnet.org/zittrain/>

By the way: There are versions of the declaration that are more 
accessible, e.g. here: <http://www.isoc.org.pl/200803/bled>.

Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 15 18:59:34 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:59:34 +1000
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
 centrally controlled network ?
In-Reply-To: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <024e01c8b6df$5fdf6fa0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Looks reasonably similar in concept at least to either GENI or Planet Lab, 2
large US based clean slate approaches

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: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
> Sent: 16 May 2008 04:13
> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
> centrally controlled network ?
> 
> A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled
> Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet
> into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know
> more about it?
> 
> http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1434 - Release Date:
> 15/05/2008 07:24
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1434 - Release Date: 15/05/2008
07:24
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 15 20:53:07 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 17:53:07 -0700
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <03a101c8b6b2$9da8f9f0$6601a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <f65fb55e0805150953se6d5f29q3c0df9d5718695ec@mail.gmail.com> <03a101c8b6b2$9da8f9f0$6601a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <20080516005307.GE19697@hserus.net>

Michael Gurstein [15/05/08 10:39 -0700]:
>In a very interesting side conversation Milton (and I believe Wolfgang) both
>agreed to the proposition that CS was a "category" (think about the age

[...]

>That is, CS in the IGF is about the pursuit of the public good (in the
>context of the Internet) or it is about nothing at all.

There is a devil lurking in this level of detail.. varying definitions of
"the public good" depending what branch of CS a particular person or org
comes from. Those would lead to personal preferences alone (not necessarily
a conflict of interest situation over different CS group's agendas, as
McTim suggest in his email) being sufficient to pull CS in different
directions, and impede consensus.

And the other devil lurking here is that there appear to be widely varying
definitions of the CS - at least some of which specifically exclude private
sector technical community members from participating. And I do note
there's a lack of consensus here too, with fiercely argued and polarized
positions.

You aren't going to get CS move from "category" to "stakeholder community"
till there is at least some effort made to bridge these gaps. And
alienating the technical community (or drawing artificial dividing lines
based on whether the person is a technician for a non profit like CPSR, or
whether he has a day job in the private sector) doesnt just widen this
particular bridge, it effectively prevents CS from having a meaningful
stake in this process, driven by the broad lack of understanding of the
underlying technical issues involved, or the current processes (often
consensus based and member driven) that govern these issues.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 15 20:56:24 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 17:56:24 -0700
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info>
References: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <20080516005624.GF19697@hserus.net>

Robert Guerra [15/05/08 14:12 -0400]:
> A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled  
> Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet  
> into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know more 
> about it?
>
> http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47

There are several Internet2 and NGN initiatives in the USA (geni and such)
that sound quite similar - and are based on the concept of a "new internet
from scratch". Perfectly legitimate and still largely academic / research
networking in nature.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 02:02:25 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:02:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <001101c8b618$b79b2e90$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <66C60BE4-9D04-40EF-A708-E455F3980603@psg.com>


On 15 May 2008, at 01:17, Ian Peter wrote:

> Folks, attached is the report from the 2008 Nominating Committee.
>
> Shortly I will compile the information on candidates and forward it  
> to Avri. It therefore should be available on the website within a  
> week or so.
>


both have been added to http://www.igcaucus.org/

a.

btw, there may be some outages over the next few weeks (don't know  
exactly when) as we will be cutting over to a new system.  we are  
trying to do it seamlessly, but in my experience, the seams can always  
be felt by someone.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri May 16 03:15:51 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 17:15:51 +1000
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <20080516005624.GF19697@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <005f01c8b724$b4bab620$8b00a8c0@IAN>




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: 16 May 2008 10:56
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra
> Subject: Re: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
> 
> Robert Guerra [15/05/08 14:12 -0400]:
> > A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled
> > Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet
> > into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know more
> > about it?
> >
> > http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47
> 
> There are several Internet2 and NGN initiatives in the USA (geni and such)
> that sound quite similar - and are based on the concept of a "new internet
> from scratch". Perfectly legitimate and still largely academic / research
> networking in nature.


Except internet2 is not a clean slate initiative, its just more of the same
with higher bandwidth.

GENI and Planet Lab are clean slate. Probably a few others as well but the
former has NSF backing and the latter supported by Intel and the like, so
they have some momentum.


> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1434 - Release Date:
> 15/05/2008 07:24
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1434 - Release Date: 15/05/2008
07:24
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Fri May 16 03:20:54 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:20:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
 centrally controlled network ?
In-Reply-To: <024e01c8b6df$5fdf6fa0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <E2D6E3AC-2785-451F-B7B8-ED0511EBF4B8@privaterra.info> <024e01c8b6df$5fdf6fa0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080516072054.GA5808@nic.fr>

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:59:34AM +1000,
 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote 
 a message of 61 lines which said:

> Looks reasonably similar in concept at least to either GENI or
> Planet Lab, 2 large US based clean slate approaches

GENI, may be (although GENI is less "clean slate" than the Clean Slate
- capital letters - Stanford project) but Planet Lab? 

What's the connection with Planet Lab? Planet Lab is an experimental
overlay for testing of distributed software, mostly P2P software. It
is certainly not an attempt to reinvent the Internet.

http://www.planet-lab.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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Fri May 16 03:39:32 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:39:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <005f01c8b724$b4bab620$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <20080516005624.GF19697@hserus.net> <005f01c8b724$b4bab620$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080516073932.GA8034@nic.fr>

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 05:15:51PM +1000,
 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote 
 a message of 60 lines which said:

> GENI and Planet Lab are clean slate. 

Certainly not for Planet Lab.

http://www.planet-lab.org/

You should at least read their papers. For instance "The Design
Principles of PlanetLab" by Larry Peterson (Princeton University) and
Timothy Roscoe (Intel Research Berkeley) says:

> PlanetLab has never aimed to start from a "clean slate". Moreover,
> architectural features of PlanetLab have always been designed with a
> view to their eventual replacement.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 03:57:12 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 00:57:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <20080516005307.GE19697@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <000e01c8b72a$7d122630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Here I agree with you Suresh, the way in which one gets around the issue of
who is (or is not CS) is by identifying what values/norms are being
articulated by CS and then seeing who "rallies round that particular
flag"... With this approach, many techie folks would be quite legitimately
within the tent and a lot of say "academics" might not...

MG

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: May 15, 2008 5:53 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report


Michael Gurstein [15/05/08 10:39 -0700]:
>In a very interesting side conversation Milton (and I believe Wolfgang) 
>both agreed to the proposition that CS was a "category" (think about 
>the age

[...]

>That is, CS in the IGF is about the pursuit of the public good (in the 
>context of the Internet) or it is about nothing at all.

There is a devil lurking in this level of detail.. varying definitions of
"the public good" depending what branch of CS a particular person or org
comes from. Those would lead to personal preferences alone (not necessarily
a conflict of interest situation over different CS group's agendas, as McTim
suggest in his email) being sufficient to pull CS in different directions,
and impede consensus.

And the other devil lurking here is that there appear to be widely varying
definitions of the CS - at least some of which specifically exclude private
sector technical community members from participating. And I do note there's
a lack of consensus here too, with fiercely argued and polarized positions.

You aren't going to get CS move from "category" to "stakeholder community"
till there is at least some effort made to bridge these gaps. And alienating
the technical community (or drawing artificial dividing lines based on
whether the person is a technician for a non profit like CPSR, or whether he
has a day job in the private sector) doesnt just widen this particular
bridge, it effectively prevents CS from having a meaningful stake in this
process, driven by the broad lack of understanding of the underlying
technical issues involved, or the current processes (often consensus based
and member driven) that govern these issues.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri May 16 03:57:12 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 00:57:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <20080516005624.GF19697@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <000f01c8b72a$7e6ea8f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

The fact that there are other similar efforts and that it is
academic/research in nature doesn't change anything I think... The question
here is who are the relevent "stakeholders" who are brought to the table for
these kinds of enterprises...

Again it seems to me that there is a very legitimate role for CS (as
representing the "public good") to be active in those discussions.

MG
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: May 15, 2008 5:56 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra
Subject: Re: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a


Robert Guerra [15/05/08 14:12 -0400]:
> A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled
> Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet  
> into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know more 
> about it?
>
> http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47

There are several Internet2 and NGN initiatives in the USA (geni and such)
that sound quite similar - and are based on the concept of a "new internet
from scratch". Perfectly legitimate and still largely academic / research
networking in nature.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 04:06:37 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:36:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <000f01c8b72a$7e6ea8f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <20080516005624.GF19697@hserus.net> <000f01c8b72a$7e6ea8f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <019301c8b72b$c5a598e0$50f0caa0$@net>

It depends. Taking Lessig's "code is law" aphorism too literally can turn
out counterproductive :)

Equally, "becoming a stakeholder just for the sake of it" isn't too
productive either.

Meaningful participation and bridge building like I said.  Which is why I
would like to see more prominence given to Diplo and other organizations
that offer bridge courses that help orient CS to technical issues /
governance, and technical people to CS attitudes, people, issues.. (and even
typical CS verbiage)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:27 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; 'Robert
> Guerra'
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
> 
> The fact that there are other similar efforts and that it is
> academic/research in nature doesn't change anything I think... The
> question
> here is who are the relevent "stakeholders" who are brought to the
> table for
> these kinds of enterprises...
> 
> Again it seems to me that there is a very legitimate role for CS (as
> representing the "public good") to be active in those discussions.
> 
> MG
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: May 15, 2008 5:56 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra
> Subject: Re: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
> 
> 
> Robert Guerra [15/05/08 14:12 -0400]:
> > A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled
> > Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the
> Internet
> > into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know
> more
> > about it?
> >
> > http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47
> 
> There are several Internet2 and NGN initiatives in the USA (geni and
> such)
> that sound quite similar - and are based on the concept of a "new
> internet
> from scratch". Perfectly legitimate and still largely academic /
> research
> networking in nature.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 04:24:56 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:24:56 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
References: <005f01c8b724$b4bab620$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425D5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Robert Guerra [15/05/08 14:12 -0400]:
A colleague has just mentioned let me know about the EU -  Bled > > Declaration. At first glance, it sounds like re-inventing the Internet > > into a centrally controlled network.  Does anyone on the list know more about it? 
http://www.future-internet.eu/index.php?id=47


Wolfgang:
I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project). This was an official EU meeting which took place under the Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU. This was not an academic but more a political conference. It was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php. First day from political leaders and other non-European projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects. There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate" (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers. The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player" in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said this are two different things. However, I discovered in the final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned. Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the document gives the impression of "re-invention of the Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008. http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs. 
 
Best regards
 
wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Fri May 16 11:50:24 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 21:20:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC879@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <005f01c8b724$b4bab620$8b00a8c0@IAN> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425D5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC879@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <024901c8b76c$8f540ba0$adfc22e0$@net>

Indeed, thanks.

There's a much bigger governance issue there - several of the new proposals
involve enhanced security and identity (aka reducing or almost eliminating
anonymity) 

Mostly for cybercrime etc reasons, just like most of these competing
proposals are one vendor against each other, supported by whatever pull they
can get from lobbying their country's government.

However, the implications for civ soc and political activists are
significant.

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:05 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
> 
> 
> Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang.
> As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional
> standards competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v.
> Japan -- involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV,
> and mobile telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky
> to overcome this fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a
> single nonproprietary standard originated in the US. Current
> competitive efforts to come up with a "new" "clean slate" Internet are
> more likely to revert to the pattern of competing regional standards,
> in my opinion. Quite apart from the control issues.
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> > I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project).
> > This was an official EU meeting which took place under the
> > Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet
> > research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU.
> > This was not an academic but more a political conference. It
> > was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php.
> > First day from political leaders and other non-European
> > projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third
> > day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects.
> > There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep
> > a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate"
> > (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than
> > sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers.
> > The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included
> > into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that
> > the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player"
> > in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI
> > etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European
> > Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link
> > this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by
> > the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said
> > this are two different things. However, I discovered in the
> > final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned.
> > Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a
> > cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled
> > Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was
> > just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the
> > document gives the impression of "re-invention of the
> > Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU
> > Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008.
> > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html
> > There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not
> > linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > wolfgang
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Fri May 16 14:44:41 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:44:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] WSIS Implementation by Action Lines meetings
Message-ID: <200805161843.m4GIhXL2019012@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Find attached the timetable of the WSIS related cluster of events starting
next Monday in Geneva.

More information and relevant documentation for each of the meeting of the
cluster is available on the WSIS website:

http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster2008.html.

 

I've been in touch with some of you who are planning to participate in some
of these sessions.

Who else is participating or contributing to some of these action line
meetings?

 

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:  <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org> philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/82b8f17b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Time table IS week 2008.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 113152 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/82b8f17b/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 11:34:37 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:34:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425D5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <005f01c8b724$b4bab620$8b00a8c0@IAN> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425D5F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC879@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang. 
As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional standards competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan -- involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome this fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single nonproprietary standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with a "new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control issues. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang 
> I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project). 
> This was an official EU meeting which took place under the 
> Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet 
> research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU. 
> This was not an academic but more a political conference. It 
> was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php. 
> First day from political leaders and other non-European 
> projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third 
> day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects. 
> There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep 
> a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate" 
> (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than 
> sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers. 
> The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included 
> into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that 
> the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player" 
> in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI 
> etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European 
> Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link 
> this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by 
> the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said 
> this are two different things. However, I discovered in the 
> final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned. 
> Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a 
> cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled 
> Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was 
> just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the 
> document gives the impression of "re-invention of the 
> Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU 
> Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008. 
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html 
> There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not 
> linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs. 
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 16 15:31:44 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:31:44 +0300
Subject: [governance] 2008 NomCom Report
In-Reply-To: <000e01c8b72a$7d122630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <20080516005307.GE19697@hserus.net>
	 <000e01c8b72a$7d122630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805161231k521e7021sec331aa9069b1d1a@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here I agree with you Suresh, the way in which one gets around the issue of
> who is (or is not CS) is by identifying what values/norms are being
> articulated by CS

ummm, if you have values articulated, then you have already identified
who is CS (those who do the articulating).

and then seeing who "rallies round that particular
> flag"... With this approach, many techie folks would be quite legitimately
> within the tent and a lot of say "academics" might not...
>

probably.

So how do we address the issue in future NomCom's? Do we need to amend
the charter?

I think we can just amend this page:

http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html

which reads:

4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be
disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being
chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified
from being chosen.

If we add "No disqualification can be made based upon the type of
employment undertaken by members."

That should fix future post-hoc political hanky panky.

-- 
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  Fri May 16 12:39:41 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:39:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
Message-ID: <s82d809c.067@gwia203.syr.edu>

Lobbying/discussions to get the 'clean-slate' Internet research trains in motion was several years back, so that train has left the station. 

But where exactly it is going noone knows, and I agree civ society should be engaged in influencing that.  

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> gurstein at gmail.com 05/16/08 12:16 PM >>>

I must repeat my concern though which is who is invited to the table to
participate in these discussions largely determines the outcome of the
discussions... Stakeholders pursue their "stakes"... So if CS or community
technology activists are not at the table their interests and concerns
aren't going to be taken into account as the research/policy/infrastructure
plays out...as is notably evident in the Bled Declaration (and as can be
read between the lines of Wolfgang's report...

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: May 16, 2008 8:48 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a


I agree there is potential for 'clean slate Internet' research to lead to
conflicting national and regional standards efforts - it is safe to assume
this will occur in future as in past.
 
But having served as a reviewer for some of this, I can say mostly we are
talking about very long-term academic research, more or less
interdisciplinary, which may lead to a practical outcome.  

Too soon for alarm for the IG community, but yeah folks should pay attention
to where the net may - or may not - go next.

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> mueller at syr.edu 05/16/08 11:34 AM >>>

Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang. 
As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional standards
competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan --
involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile
telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome this
fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single nonproprietary
standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with a
"new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of
competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control
issues. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All
Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project). 
> This was an official EU meeting which took place under the 
> Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet 
> research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU. 
> This was not an academic but more a political conference. It 
> was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php. 
> First day from political leaders and other non-European 
> projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third 
> day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects. 
> There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep 
> a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate" 
> (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than 
> sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers. 
> The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included 
> into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that 
> the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player" 
> in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI 
> etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European 
> Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link 
> this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by 
> the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said 
> this are two different things. However, I discovered in the 
> final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned. 
> Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a 
> cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled 
> Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was 
> just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the 
> document gives the impression of "re-invention of the 
> Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU 
> Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008. 
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html 
> There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not 
> linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs. 
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri May 16 16:22:04 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 06:22:04 +1000
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <00cc01c8b770$2a355ea0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <01a401c8b792$893577b0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

I haven’t followed the European initiative as closely, but I am a member of
a couple of GENI working groups. Thus far most discussion I remember has
been about how to create a technical platform for any individual or group to
engage in experimentation without conflict - concepts such as slices. No
models have been chosen for a new Internet. Yes, CS should keep a watching
brief particularly if anyone starts talking about user requirements. As far
as I know anyone can join the discussion groups.

However, I would predict that the new Internet is far more likely to emerge
from small business in India or China than from state funded largely
academic initiatives. Nor is it likely to emerge from an IETF or an ITU. I
suspect something will emerge and we will just adopt it because it adds
value. And I suggest the model will be something like what happened with
TCP/IP - it didn't replace the existing systems so much as pave over the top
of them over a number of years by universal assent. 

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: 17 May 2008 02:16
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
> 
> 
> I must repeat my concern though which is who is invited to the table to
> participate in these discussions largely determines the outcome of the
> discussions... Stakeholders pursue their "stakes"... So if CS or community
> technology activists are not at the table their interests and concerns
> aren't going to be taken into account as the
> research/policy/infrastructure
> plays out...as is notably evident in the Bled Declaration (and as can be
> read between the lines of Wolfgang's report...
> 
> MG
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: May 16, 2008 8:48 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
> 
> 
> I agree there is potential for 'clean slate Internet' research to lead to
> conflicting national and regional standards efforts - it is safe to assume
> this will occur in future as in past.
> 
> But having served as a reviewer for some of this, I can say mostly we are
> talking about very long-term academic research, more or less
> interdisciplinary, which may lead to a practical outcome.
> 
> Too soon for alarm for the IG community, but yeah folks should pay
> attention
> to where the net may - or may not - go next.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> mueller at syr.edu 05/16/08 11:34 AM >>>
> 
> Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang.
> As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional
> standards
> competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan --
> involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile
> telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome
> this
> fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single
> nonproprietary
> standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with
> a
> "new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of
> competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control
> issues.
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All
> Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> > I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project).
> > This was an official EU meeting which took place under the
> > Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet
> > research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU.
> > This was not an academic but more a political conference. It
> > was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php.
> > First day from political leaders and other non-European
> > projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third
> > day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects.
> > There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep
> > a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate"
> > (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than
> > sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers.
> > The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included
> > into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that
> > the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player"
> > in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI
> > etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European
> > Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link
> > this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by
> > the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said
> > this are two different things. However, I discovered in the
> > final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned.
> > Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a
> > cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled
> > Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was
> > just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the
> > document gives the impression of "re-invention of the
> > Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU
> > Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008.
> > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html
> > There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not
> > linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > wolfgang ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date:
> 16/05/2008 07:42
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date: 16/05/2008
07:42
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 13:21:07 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:21:07 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [bytesforall_readers] Internet governance
Message-ID: <00e501c8b779$3ae71e10$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

From: bytesforall_readers at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bytesforall_readers at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Subbiah
Arunachalam
Sent: May 15, 2008 9:25 PM
To: fredericknoronha at gmail.com; bytesforall_readers at yahoogroups.com;
sunil at mahiti.org; lawrence at altlawforum.org; balki at serc.iisc.ernet.in;
dksahu at medknow.com; rinalia at gkps.org.my; gkps at gkps.org.my;
cfigueres at iicd.org; RCoolen at iicd.org; l.schout at hivos.nl; mclarke at idrc.ca;
atanu.garai at gmail.com; shaddy.shadrach at gmail.com; acha at google.com;
kiruba at kiruba.com; krisdev at gmail.com; ashoka at ipc.iisc.ernet.in;
tenet_family at tenet.res.in; R.Venuprasad at commonwealth.int; Shahab E. Khan
Subject: [bytesforall_readers] Internet governance



Friends interested in Internet governance:

Here is some development from Harvard's Berkman Centre.

Arun
[Subbiah arunachalam]

===

From Open Access News

Harvard's
<http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/2008/05/harvard-publius-project.html>
Publius Project 

As part of its 10th anniversary celebration, Harvard's Berkman Center for
Internet and Society <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/>  has launched the
Publius Project <http://publius.cc/> .  

The idea is foster a public dialogue on the evolving norms for governing the
internet, just as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, under the
pseudonym Publius, fostered a public dialogue through the Federalist
<http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/federalist.html> Papers
(1787-1788) on the norms which ought to govern the newly independent United
States.

From the FAQ <http://publius.cc/faq/> :

By gathering experts across multiple dimensions of cyberspace and asking
them to identify and reflect on the rolling and diverse constitutional
moments of net governance, we hope to reflect a wide range of perspectives
on how the Net should-or should not-be governed....

As we highlight in our introductory pieces, norms, rules and decisions about
control, power, and governance are constantly evolving and being formulated
in this space. In order to effectively understand, influence, and shape
those structures, we must ask the questions: what is the regime we're
traveling towards? What is our ideal? How are decisions made in this space,
and who makes them? ...

All the contributions to the Publius Project are OA, under CC-BY licenses,
and all are attributed.  The first 10 are now online and other contributions
will be released in waves.  (Disclosure:  My own contribution, on the
evolving norms for deciding who controls access to research, will be
released in a subsequent wave.)

 <http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/2008/05/harvard-publius-project.html>
Permanent link to this post Posted by Peter Suber at 5/15/2008 06:08:00 PM. 


__._,_.___ 
Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers/message/12054;_ylc=X3oDMT
M2czlxbHRyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BG1zZ0
lkAzEyMDU0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTIxMDk1MDgzNAR0cGNJZAMxMjA1NA-->
in this topic (1)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMW1icWp
2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BG1zZ0lkAzEyMDU
0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTIxMDk1MDgzNA--?act=reply&messageNum=12054
> Reply (via web post) | Start
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlM3AzdXF
1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2x
rA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTIxMDk1MDgzNA--> a new topic 
Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZHZ
jaWEwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BHNlYwNmdHI
Ec2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTIxMDk1MDgzNA-->  
 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaTgxN3BnBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM1M
TUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjEwOTUwODM0>
Yahoo! Groups 
Change
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJma24zNWV
nBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2x
rA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzEyMTA5NTA4MzQ-> settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)

Change settings via email: Switch
<mailto:bytesforall_readers-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery:
Digest> delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
<mailto:bytesforall_readers-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change
Delivery Format: Traditional> format to Traditional 
Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcTM2aTJvBF9T
Azk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hw
ZgRzdGltZQMxMjEwOTUwODM0> Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> of Use | Unsubscribe
<mailto:bytesforall_readers-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=> 
Recent Activity

*	

	 6
	New
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJma3Bz
NXMxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BHNlYwN2dGwE
c2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyMTA5NTA4MzQ-> Members

Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMm1tZnJsBF9T
Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM1MTUzNjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0NzM4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3Zn
aHAEc3RpbWUDMTIxMDk1MDgzNA--> Your Group 
Yahoo! Finance

It's
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13oj3sg22/M=493064.12016257.12445664.8674578/D=
groups/S=1705004738:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1210958034/L=/B=.0nyAkLaSso-/J=1210950834
917674/A=4507179/R=0/SIG=12de4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http:/
/finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance> Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Healthy Living

Learn
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o5809qa/M=493064.12662709.12980595.8674578/D=
groups/S=1705004738:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1210958034/L=/B=_EnyAkLaSso-/J=1210950834
917674/A=5349280/R=0/SIG=11ks6tatn/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/Heal
thyLiving/> to live life

to the fullest

on Yahoo! Groups.

Check out the

Y!
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13odvd0gd/M=493064.12016258.12582637.8674578/D=
groups/S=1705004738:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1210958034/L=/B=_UnyAkLaSso-/J=1210950834
917674/A=5191952/R=0/SIG=112mhte3e/*http://www.ygroupsblog.com/blog/> Groups
blog

Stay up to speed

on all things Groups!

.
 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3515363/grpspId=1705004738/msgId
=12054/stime=1210950834/nc1=4507179/nc2=5349280/nc3=5191952> 
__,_._,___ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/cb3c0449/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From wsis at ngocongo.org  Fri May 16 14:53:33 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:53:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] [1] Global Alliance for ICT and Development (Strategy
 Council and Steering Committee meetings)
Message-ID: <200805161852.m4GIqQRi027603@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

 

Dear all, 

 

Find attached some of the key documents of the GAID Strategic Council and
Steering Committee meeting taking place on 18 May 2008 (in particular the
annotated agendas of the strategy council and steering committee, as well as
the GAID progress report, the latest version of the GAID Business plan for
2008, the outcome of the GAID evaluation and a background note on the vision
for the future of GAID).

It will be followed by the GAID Global Forum on Access and Connectivity and
Innovative Funding for ICT for Development on 19 and 20 May 2008.

 

These documents and others and been circulated by the GAID Secretariat over
this week and should be available on the GAID website
(http://www.un-gaid.org/) - but I experience some difficulties to reach the
webpage of the up coming meeting.

 

The key issues to be discussed will include the following topics:

 

-          Up dates on the progress of GAID initiatives (in particular
Flagship Partnership Initiatives, Partnerships for Advocacy, Communities of
Expertise and regional networks)

-          Presentation of proposed new initiatives to the Strategy Council
and motion to adopt them by the Steering Committee.

-          Discussion on the future of GAID, which will also be considered
in the light of the outcome of the GAID external evaluation - performed by
the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University.

 

Note that Renate Bloem, as member of the Steering Committee, will be
attending both the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council meetings,
alongside with other CS persons also member of this list.

Feel free to get back to me or to her or on this list if you have any
comment or contribution that you would like to see forwarded to the
discussion in KL.

 

We will report back to you in details about the outcomes of this meeting.

 

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:  <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org> philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/af236b37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Annotated Agenda Strategy Council as of 12 May2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 166036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/af236b37/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Annotated Agenda Steering Committee as of 9 May 2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 134471 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/af236b37/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 12:16:13 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:16:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
In-Reply-To: <s82d7484.084@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <00cc01c8b770$2a355ea0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


I must repeat my concern though which is who is invited to the table to
participate in these discussions largely determines the outcome of the
discussions... Stakeholders pursue their "stakes"... So if CS or community
technology activists are not at the table their interests and concerns
aren't going to be taken into account as the research/policy/infrastructure
plays out...as is notably evident in the Bled Declaration (and as can be
read between the lines of Wolfgang's report...

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: May 16, 2008 8:48 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a


I agree there is potential for 'clean slate Internet' research to lead to
conflicting national and regional standards efforts - it is safe to assume
this will occur in future as in past.
 
But having served as a reviewer for some of this, I can say mostly we are
talking about very long-term academic research, more or less
interdisciplinary, which may lead to a practical outcome.  

Too soon for alarm for the IG community, but yeah folks should pay attention
to where the net may - or may not - go next.

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> mueller at syr.edu 05/16/08 11:34 AM >>>

Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang. 
As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional standards
competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan --
involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile
telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome this
fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single nonproprietary
standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with a
"new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of
competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control
issues. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All
Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project). 
> This was an official EU meeting which took place under the 
> Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet 
> research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU. 
> This was not an academic but more a political conference. It 
> was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php. 
> First day from political leaders and other non-European 
> projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third 
> day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects. 
> There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep 
> a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate" 
> (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than 
> sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers. 
> The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included 
> into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that 
> the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player" 
> in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI 
> etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European 
> Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link 
> this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by 
> the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said 
> this are two different things. However, I discovered in the 
> final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned. 
> Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a 
> cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled 
> Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was 
> just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the 
> document gives the impression of "re-invention of the 
> Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU 
> Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008. 
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html 
> There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not 
> linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs. 
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 11:53:06 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 17:53:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF MAG meeting summary
Message-ID: <47FD07AC-E1C5-4023-A192-909AE8EB6903@psg.com>

has been uploaded:

http://www.intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.16.05.2008.final.pdf

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Fri May 16 14:58:45 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:58:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] [2] Global Alliance for ICT and Development (Strategy
 Council and Steering Committee meetings)
Message-ID: <200805161857.m4GIvaSD030299@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Second part of the GAID meeting documentation.

Ph

  _____  

De : CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] 
Envoyé : vendredi, 16. mai 2008 18:53
À : 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'WSIS
CS WG on Information Networks Governance'
Cc : 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; congo at ngocongo.org
Objet : Global Alliance for ICT and Development (Strategy Council and
Steering Committee meetings)
Importance : Haute

 

Dear all, 

 

Find attached some of the key documents of the GAID Strategic Council and
Steering Committee meeting taking place on 18 May 2008 (in particular the
annotated agendas of the strategy council and steering committee, as well as
the GAID progress report, the latest version of the GAID Business plan for
2008, the outcome of the GAID evaluation and a background note on the vision
for the future of GAID).

It will be followed by the GAID Global Forum on Access and Connectivity and
Innovative Funding for ICT for Development on 19 and 20 May 2008.

 

These documents and others and been circulated by the GAID Secretariat over
this week and should be available on the GAID website
(http://www.un-gaid.org/) – but I experience some difficulties to reach the
webpage of the up coming meeting.

 

The key issues to be discussed will include the following topics:

 

-          Up dates on the progress of GAID initiatives (in particular
Flagship Partnership Initiatives, Partnerships for Advocacy, Communities of
Expertise and regional networks)

-          Presentation of proposed new initiatives to the Strategy Council
and motion to adopt them by the Steering Committee.

-          Discussion on the future of GAID, which will also be considered
in the light of the outcome of the GAID external evaluation – performed by
the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University.

 

Note that Renate Bloem, as member of the Steering Committee, will be
attending both the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council meetings,
alongside with other CS persons also member of this list.

Feel free to get back to me or to her or on this list if you have any
comment or contribution that you would like to see forwarded to the
discussion in KL.

 

We will report back to you in details about the outcomes of this meeting.

 

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:  <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org> philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/2614619d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Annotated Agenda Strategy Council as of 12 May2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 166036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/2614619d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Annotated Agenda Steering Committee as of 9 May 2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 134471 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080516/2614619d/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 16 11:47:56 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:47:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
Message-ID: <s82d7484.084@gwia203.syr.edu>

I agree there is potential for 'clean slate Internet' research to lead to conflicting national and regional standards efforts - it is safe to assume this will occur in future as in past.

But having served as a reviewer for some of this, I can say mostly we are talking about very long-term academic research, more or less interdisciplinary, which may lead to a practical outcome.  

Too soon for alarm for the IG community, but yeah folks should pay attention to where the net may - or may not - go next.

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> mueller at syr.edu 05/16/08 11:34 AM >>>

Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang. 
As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional standards competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan -- involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome this fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single nonproprietary standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with a "new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control issues. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang 
> I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project). 
> This was an official EU meeting which took place under the 
> Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet 
> research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU. 
> This was not an academic but more a political conference. It 
> was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php. 
> First day from political leaders and other non-European 
> projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third 
> day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects. 
> There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep 
> a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate" 
> (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than 
> sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers. 
> The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included 
> into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that 
> the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player" 
> in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI 
> etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European 
> Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link 
> this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by 
> the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said 
> this are two different things. However, I discovered in the 
> final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned. 
> Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a 
> cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled 
> Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was 
> just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the 
> document gives the impression of "re-invention of the 
> Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU 
> Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008. 
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html 
> There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not 
> linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs. 
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 17 04:09:26 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 10:09:26 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
References: <01a401c8b792$893577b0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425D6D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Ian puts the finger in the right direction. The NGN debate is still very experimental. But nobody knows what will be the real outcome. Probably there are unintended side-effects which will make its way to the real world. 
 
As Ian has argued if there is "added value" it will be accepted, if not, it will be rejected. This will - at least in my opinion - not replace existing mechanisms, including the DNS, but it can add something on top which than could create another "network of networks". 
 
One issue under discussion is the ONS and its relationship to the DNS. My understanding von EPC Global is that key services are now managed on top of a .com domain by VeriSign. Doesn´t this include "governance issues"? Will VeriSign "control" all the "moving things" in the Internet?  Will there be one root or multiple roots for the ONS? Will DNS development and enhancement (iDNs) have consequences for ONS? 
 
Probably very naive questions, but my feeling is that the RFID guys, although there are aware on privacy risks, are ignoring some of the governance issues 
 
Wolfgang

 
________________________________

Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Gesendet: Fr 16.05.2008 22:22
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a



I haven't followed the European initiative as closely, but I am a member of
a couple of GENI working groups. Thus far most discussion I remember has
been about how to create a technical platform for any individual or group to
engage in experimentation without conflict - concepts such as slices. No
models have been chosen for a new Internet. Yes, CS should keep a watching
brief particularly if anyone starts talking about user requirements. As far
as I know anyone can join the discussion groups.

However, I would predict that the new Internet is far more likely to emerge
from small business in India or China than from state funded largely
academic initiatives. Nor is it likely to emerge from an IETF or an ITU. I
suspect something will emerge and we will just adopt it because it adds
value. And I suggest the model will be something like what happened with
TCP/IP - it didn't replace the existing systems so much as pave over the top
of them over a number of years by universal assent.

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: 17 May 2008 02:16
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
>
>
> I must repeat my concern though which is who is invited to the table to
> participate in these discussions largely determines the outcome of the
> discussions... Stakeholders pursue their "stakes"... So if CS or community
> technology activists are not at the table their interests and concerns
> aren't going to be taken into account as the
> research/policy/infrastructure
> plays out...as is notably evident in the Bled Declaration (and as can be
> read between the lines of Wolfgang's report...
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: May 16, 2008 8:48 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a
>
>
> I agree there is potential for 'clean slate Internet' research to lead to
> conflicting national and regional standards efforts - it is safe to assume
> this will occur in future as in past.
>
> But having served as a reviewer for some of this, I can say mostly we are
> talking about very long-term academic research, more or less
> interdisciplinary, which may lead to a practical outcome.
>
> Too soon for alarm for the IG community, but yeah folks should pay
> attention
> to where the net may - or may not - go next.
>
> Lee
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> mueller at syr.edu 05/16/08 11:34 AM >>>
>
> Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang.
> As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional
> standards
> competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan --
> involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile
> telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome
> this
> fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single
> nonproprietary
> standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with
> a
> "new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of
> competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control
> issues.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All
> Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> > I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project).
> > This was an official EU meeting which took place under the
> > Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet
> > research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU.
> > This was not an academic but more a political conference. It
> > was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php.
> > First day from political leaders and other non-European
> > projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third
> > day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects.
> > There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep
> > a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate"
> > (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than
> > sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers.
> > The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included
> > into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that
> > the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player"
> > in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI
> > etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European
> > Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link
> > this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by
> > the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said
> > this are two different things. However, I discovered in the
> > final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned.
> > Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a
> > cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled
> > Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was
> > just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the
> > document gives the impression of "re-invention of the
> > Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU
> > Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008.
> > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html
> > There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not
> > linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > wolfgang ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date:
> 16/05/2008 07:42
>

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date: 16/05/2008
07:42


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 gmail.com  Sat May 17 23:11:50 2008
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:11:50 +0800
Subject: [governance] Presentations on the latest Internet service cutoff
 in the Middle East
Message-ID: <609019df0805172011i1bfe6e11v50630db17b519868@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All:
You will find in the link below 3 presentations that were given during the
Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) meeting in Kuwait on April
15,2008 regarding the recent Internet interruption of service in the Middle
East which occured last Febraury.

http://www.igcaucus.org/files/kuwait/

Regards,

Qusai
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080518/c6459de0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 19 07:44:24 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 13:44:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] TR: Information related to the 11th session of the CSTD
Message-ID: <200805191144.m4JBiVme026967@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Find attached some update updated documentation in the perspective of the up
coming 11th session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for
Development (26-30 May 2008).

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:  <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org> philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

  _____  

De : Mongi Hamdi
Envoyé : vendredi, 16. mai 2008 19:02
À : Mongi Hamdi
Objet : Information related to the 11th session of the CSTD

 


Dear colleagues and participants, 

I have the pleasure to attach below a provisional programme for the 11th
session of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for
Development (CSTD), scheduled to tale place in Geneva from 26 to 30 May
2008.  I am also attaching a number of documents aimed at providing
information to facilitate your participation and that of your delegation.
These include an (1) An "Aide Memoire" for delegations attending the session
at ministerial level: (2) general information for participants; (3) an
issues note for the Ministerial Segment; (4) provisional programme for the
presentation of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) review
of Angola, and (5) a tentative list of participants. 
As some of these documents have not been finalized yet, your feedback will
be appreciated.   

Looking forward to welcoming you all in Geneva. 

With best regards, 

Mongi Hamdi
Head of the CSTD Secretariat
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
Tel. 004122 917 5069
Fax. 004122 9170122
http://www.unctad.org/stdev 


                                

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080519/d630122e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda provisional 16 May revised.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 114176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080519/d630122e/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Aide mémoire 2008, version 2.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 38400 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080519/d630122e/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Angola STIP presentation.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 27648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080519/d630122e/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Information to participants 4.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 90112 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080519/d630122e/attachment-0003.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ministerial segment.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080519/d630122e/attachment-0004.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: List of particpants 16 May 08.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 108032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080519/d630122e/attachment-0005.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 20 08:39:53 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:39:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] GigaNet Side Event in Seoul
In-Reply-To: <C4586E5B.11B4F%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <C4589339.11B67%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

If anyone is attending the OECD meeting in Seoul 16-18 June, please feel
free to join us at the event below.

Thanks,

Bill

-------------

Parallel event to be held in conjunction with the OECD Ministerial Meeting
on the Future of the Internet Economy


Global Internet Governance:
Implications for the
Future of the Internet Economy

Seoul, Korea, June 16, 2008, 12:30-13:15

COEX Convention & Exhibition Center, Grand Ballroom # 104, 105

Co-hosted by  BK21 Digital Media Division, Seoul National University
                   

The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet,
http://www.igloo.org/giganet) is a scholarly community launched in Spring
2006.  Its objectives are to: support the establishment of a global cohort
of scholars specializing on Internet governance issues; advance theoretical
and applied research and promote the development of Internet governance as a
recognized, interdisciplinary field of  study; and facilitate informed
policy relevant dialogue between  scholars, policy practitioners, and
stakeholders. Among other activities, GigaNet organizes research symposia,
including in conjunction with the annual meetings of the UN Internet
Governance Forum.  

This brief side event will introduce  GigaNet and its activities and then
highlight some recent  developments and emerging issues that could have a
significant impact on the future trajectory of the Internet economy.   The
program will consist of short remarks by scholars who have been involved  in
the global policy debates on Internet governance, followed by open
discussion with the audience.  More details are at:
http://tinyurl.com/6bvjpk.


Panelists

William J. Drake
Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance,
  Program for the Study of International Organization(s)
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland

Myungkoo Kang
Professor, Department of Communication
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea

Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Professor of International Communication Policy and Regulation
Department for Media and Information Sciences, University of Aarhus
Aarhus, Denmark

Meryem Marzouki
Senior Researcher, the French National Scientific Research Center
(CNRS), the Computer Science Laboratory of Paris 6 (LIP6)
Paris, France



***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080520/6f00a447/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue May 20 08:59:44 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:59:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Update: Stakeholder consultation on PP in Internet
 Governance 23 May
Message-ID: <20080520125958.E8E7847093D@mail.gn.apc.org>

Dear all

for those of you in geneva on May 23rd, please do 
think about coming to the stakeholder 
consultation on public participation in Internet 
governance, co-hosted by the COE, UNECE and APC

"Stakeholder Consultation on Public Participation in Internet Governance"
  23 May 2008, 14:00-17:00,
Room C2 – International Telecommunications Union Headquarteers, Geneva.

Documents related to the meeting, including David 
Souter's exploratory report on a possible code of 
good practice in public participation in Internet 
governance and Bill Drake's essay on the WSIS 
principles, as well as a revised list of 
speakers, have been uploaded to the webpage -- 
<http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm>http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm 


I hope to see some of you on Friday

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080520/9e65d01d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 20 11:18:35 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:18:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Infomration session - 21 May, 1.00 pm - participation
 of relevant stakeholders in the ITU activities...
Message-ID: <200805201518.m4KFITEE008974@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

This to remind you that the ITU Secretariat will hold an information session
on the on going consultation process on the issue of participation of
relevant stakeholders in the ITU activities related to WSIS. At the request
of the ITU WG working on this issue, a questionnaire open to all WSIS CS
accredited stakeholders has been circulated and deadline for answering this
questionnaire is 15 June 2008. 

 

The Information session, taking place tomorrow on 21 May (1.00-2.00 pm in
Room C2 at the ITU), will provide an opportunity for raising any question or
comment on this consultation process - and on the activities of the WG.

 

Note that CONGO would be happy to consider including in its answer to the
questionnaire some inputs from non-WSIS accredited CS entities who might be
interested in this issue.

 

Links:

 

-          ITU Council working on the study on the Participation of all
relevant stakeholders in ITU Activities related to WSIS:
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/.

 

-          On Line Questionnaire for all WSIS accredited entities:
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/openconsultation2008/index.ht
ml

 

-          Invitation to the 21 May information session on the open
consultation:
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/openconsultation2008/open-con
sultation-DM-08-1008-2.pdf 

 

The answers to this online questionnaire will be considered by the ITU WG at
its next meeting in September 2008. The Co-Chair of the Working Group will
be participating in this information session.

 

We will provide you with a complete summary of this session.

 

Best, 

 

Philippe Dam 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080520/d04394d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 20 11:47:43 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:47:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Update: Stakeholder consultation on PP in
 Internet Governance 23 May
In-Reply-To: <20080520125958.E8E7847093D@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <20080520125958.E8E7847093D@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <9006C471-B1CD-4CA2-A357-4F41F15DE544@psg.com>

Hi,

Will there be any webcast or audiocast of the meeting?

thanks

a.


On 20 May 2008, at 08:59, karen banks wrote:

> Dear all
>
> for those of you in geneva on May 23rd, please do think about coming  
> to the stakeholder consultation on public participation in Internet  
> governance, co-hosted by the COE, UNECE and APC
>
> "Stakeholder Consultation on Public Participation in Internet  
> Governance"
>  23 May 2008, 14:00-17:00,
> Room C2 – International Telecommunications Union Headquarteers,  
> Geneva.
>
> Documents related to the meeting, including David Souter's  
> exploratory report on a possible code of good practice in public  
> participation in Internet governance and Bill Drake's essay on the  
> WSIS principles, as well as a revised list of speakers, have been  
> uploaded to the webpage -- http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm
>
> I hope to see some of you on Friday
>
> karen
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue May 20 12:10:11 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 01:10:11 +0900
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
Message-ID: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]>

Does anyone know how to "un-digg" something.

Say someone writes an article for a major newspaper about a report 
you wrote and the article got a number of key facts wrong.  But 
people are digg'ing the article and therefore linking and 
perpetuating the misinformation.

Not suggesting any type of censorship, more a right of response/correction.

Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do 
we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to 
learn how to forget?)

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Tue May 20 12:18:52 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:18:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]>
Message-ID: <4832F9EC.3040708@jacquelinemorris.com>

If the major newspaper corrected the minsinformation, the dugg link 
should be to the newspaper's website's corrected page, as the newspaper 
should not leave up the page with the  incorrect information. It would 
only then be in caches like Google's and that can get cleared up 
relatively soon when the new corrected article is cached.
However, if the major newspaper did NOT correct the article, I dunno! If 
you can't get the original fixed.... hmmmm
Jacqueline

Adam Peake wrote:
> Does anyone know how to "un-digg" something.
>
> Say someone writes an article for a major newspaper about a report you 
> wrote and the article got a number of key facts wrong.  But people are 
> digg'ing the article and therefore linking and perpetuating the 
> misinformation.
>
> Not suggesting any type of censorship, more a right of 
> response/correction.
>
> Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do we 
> teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to learn 
> how to forget?)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue May 20 12:16:27 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:16:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Update: Stakeholder consultation on PP in
In-Reply-To: <9006C471-B1CD-4CA2-A357-4F41F15DE544@psg.com>
References: <20080520125958.E8E7847093D@mail.gn.apc.org>
 <9006C471-B1CD-4CA2-A357-4F41F15DE544@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080520161653.535BC4B6298@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi avri

>Will there be any webcast or audiocast of the meeting?

no, i'm afraid not.. i don't think any of the WSIS action line 
meetings this week are being cast are they? (not that this event is a 
wsis action line event, but it will be using the same ITU facilities)

karen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080520/3bd668c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue May 20 12:23:59 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:23:59 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] how to un-digg?
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DA9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Good question, Adam. 
 
I am affraid only little can be done. 
 
There is a UN Convention from 1954 about the right to correction, entered into force in 1961. 
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/u1circ.htm
 
But experiences with this convention (for clear defined "mass media") are discouraging. You can have things settled probably only in national contexts, mainly via courts. If somebody hurts somebodies interest/dignity she/he can be punished (mainly by paying several hundred thousands of EUR or so). But there will be no cyberpolice which will correct all the bad and wrong and dirty information (about issues, yourself or the hell). 
 
Probably you enter into a discussion with the Chinese friends who proposed the "World Internet Norm" in Rio de Janeiro which includes the development of an unsprecified mechanism to remove "bad information" so that we will have a "healthy Internet".  . 
 
Another issue is the "right to forget". Probably something could be done by having a protocol for expiration. Great challenge. But techically you could include into video uploadsoftware an expiration code which would remove the file automatically after a certain period. But this is no guarantetee to have thousands of private copies which could be easily substitute the expired and removed original.
 
Anyhiw, good question for a IGF workshop.
 
Wolfgang   
 

________________________________

Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Gesendet: Di 20.05.2008 18:10
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] how to un-digg?



Does anyone know how to "un-digg" something.

Say someone writes an article for a major newspaper about a report
you wrote and the article got a number of key facts wrong.  But
people are digg'ing the article and therefore linking and
perpetuating the misinformation.

Not suggesting any type of censorship, more a right of response/correction.

Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do
we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to
learn how to forget?)

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Tue May 20 12:56:39 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:56:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]>
Message-ID: <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>

Adam:


On 20-May-08, at 12:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

> Does anyone know how to "un-digg" something.


> Say someone writes an article for a major newspaper about a report  
> you wrote and the article got a number of key facts wrong.  But  
> people are digg'ing the article and therefore linking and  
> perpetuating the misinformation.
>
As with any story that goes to the press - and published - with the  
facts wrong... not much usually you can do. You can add a correction  
to the thread on Digg, but the fact remains that the original  
reference is there.

An even if it can be corrected on digg, the original might make to the  
internet archive (archive.org) - and there, well, it's there forever...

> Not suggesting any type of censorship, more a right of response/ 
> correction.

it's problematic - one persons' correction could be another's censorship
>
>
> Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do  
> we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to  
> learn how to forget?)

As I don't think we want the leading libraries of the world to "forget/ 
erase" books, I would be - very cautious - with the global knowledge  
resource (aka. the internet) forgetting facts and thus changing  
history..


regards

Robert

Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana
From: Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason
George Santayana -  philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 20 18:03:49 2008
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:03:49 -0700
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]> <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <5D38C786-F40E-44EA-A8DA-96DBC609C0DC@telus.net>

On 20-May-08, at 9:56 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:

> Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it..

We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the  
responsibility for our future.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

GG
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Tue May 20 20:53:40 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AW: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]
Message-ID: <sympa.1211330898.15831.865@lists.cpsr.org>

While you'er at it, can you un-digg the B-Administration's WMD errors. 

Non-Un-Diggable abilities, Are truly Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Maybe the Corporations don't want you to Un-Digg them, except when it impacts
thier stock prices.

Half of writing History ... Is hiding the Truth.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 21 02:45:22 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 08:45:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <4832F9EC.3040708@jacquelinemorris.com>
Message-ID: <C45991A2.11BA9%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Adam,

Whatever misinfo you're dealing with, I think I may have you beat.  A couple
years ago I was invited to Madrid to give a speech to Telefonica Foundation,
which arranged a couple press interviews afterwards.  Among other things, I
explained that some developing country governments had been pushing for ITU
to play a leading role in IG, and also that the UN was setting up the IGF,
which I said was a good thing.  I asked, as I usually do, that they send me
the text first before running it, but in my experience journalists usually
can't be bothered to do that.   Couple weeks later, an article comes out
that appears to conflate the two points and has me saying, according to
Google translation, that  the UN should be the locus of IG decision making
rather than just IGF dialogue, with the lovely title, "the UN should
centralize Internet governance."  Don't know if the problem was language or
editorial sexing up, but I wrote to the journalist and to the paper saying
you've completely mangled what I said and got no response, so there it
remains on the web...

Best,

Bill


On 5/20/08 6:18 PM, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam at jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:

> If the major newspaper corrected the minsinformation, the dugg link
> should be to the newspaper's website's corrected page, as the newspaper
> should not leave up the page with the  incorrect information. It would
> only then be in caches like Google's and that can get cleared up
> relatively soon when the new corrected article is cached.
> However, if the major newspaper did NOT correct the article, I dunno! If
> you can't get the original fixed.... hmmmm
> Jacqueline
> 
> Adam Peake wrote:
>> Does anyone know how to "un-digg" something.
>> 
>> Say someone writes an article for a major newspaper about a report you
>> wrote and the article got a number of key facts wrong.  But people are
>> digg'ing the article and therefore linking and perpetuating the
>> misinformation.
>> 
>> Not suggesting any type of censorship, more a right of
>> response/correction.
>> 
>> Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do we
>> teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to learn
>> how to forget?)
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Adam
 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed May 21 05:25:27 2008
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:25:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@[192.168.101.185]> <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <4833EA87.8080104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Robert Guerra schrieb:
>> Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do
>> we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to
>> learn how to forget?)
That was about personal information, not about stuff in newspapers.

The argument is originally from Victor Mayer-Schönberger:
<http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-022>

But still:
> As I don't think we want the leading libraries of the world to 
> "forget/erase" books,
Most libraries throw out books on a regular basis, because their storage
space is limited.

> I would be - very cautious - with the global knowledge resource (aka.
> the internet) forgetting facts and thus changing history..
Interesting point. I also think that any corrections have to be clearly
marked.

Best, Ralf

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Wed May 21 09:10:19 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:10:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <4833EA87.8080104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185>
	 <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>
	 <4833EA87.8080104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805210610s59d48f83td34781a57faffb7b@mail.gmail.com>

Adam wrote "I asked, as I usually do, that they send me the text first
before running it, but in my experience journalists usually can't be
bothered to do that".
If I agree with the first part of the remark that bothers with
unprofessionalism by members of the the Press corps, I disagree with the
affirmation that "Journalists usually cannot bother to do it". Journalism
ethics allows for news sources interviewed to look at transcripts of their
statements (on demand) before the bulletin goes to print. If Adam requested
to read the transcript and the Spanish Journalist refused, thus going ahead
to mangle his statement or proceed to utter mis-statement, the said
Journalist did go against ethics.
What Adams had to do was to write to the Editor stating the mis-statement
and pointing out the fact that he requested to read the interview and
ascertain that words were not put in his mouth but the Journalist did not
respect it. The Editor will be bound to carry out the correction and in
sanction the Journalist for such gross misconduct.
So Journalists usually are not bothered to having interviews visaed by
interviewees. They are the interviewees letting bad Journalists go their way
by not insisting à priori to read the transcript before engaging in a
one-for-one.
NEXT TIME, INSIST ON HAVING TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE PUBLICATION PRIOR
TO GRANTING THE INTERVIEW. YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE THIS AGREEMENT IN WRITING
BEFORE SITTING DOWN TO TALK. THIS IS MORE SO IN AN AREA LIKE IG WHERE VERY
FEW JOURNALMISTS HAVE SOME BACK GROUND

AARON


On 5/21/08, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Robert Guerra schrieb:
>
>> Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do
>>> we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to
>>> learn how to forget?)
>>>
>> That was about personal information, not about stuff in newspapers.
>
> The argument is originally from Victor Mayer-Schönberger:
> <http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-022>
>
> But still:
>
>> As I don't think we want the leading libraries of the world to
>> "forget/erase" books,
>>
> Most libraries throw out books on a regular basis, because their storage
> space is limited.
>
> I would be - very cautious - with the global knowledge resource (aka.
>> the internet) forgetting facts and thus changing history..
>>
> Interesting point. I also think that any corrections have to be clearly
> marked.
>
> Best, Ralf
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/fcc457f0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 21 09:47:09 2008
From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:47:09 EDT
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
Message-ID: <c20.38455f80.356581dd@aol.com>

Dear All --

I respectfully disagree that journalists have any obligation to submit texts 
beforehand to interviewees.

In fact, doing so -- submitting in effect to a form of prior censorship -- 
would be grounds for dismissal at major news outlets where I have worked.

It is standard procedure for politicians to say when a statement later proves 
to be embarassing that they were misquoted or quoted "out of context." That 
can happen, of course. But in most cases of which I've been aware, that's just 
a copout by the speaker. The "quoted out of context" defense automatically 
produces sniggers amongst journalists.

I had a case in which the late Shah's sister publicly denied having said 
something to me that prompted a former business partner to claim he had been 
cheated by her. There was a lawsuit over it. Her lawyer backed off when my lawyer 
produced my tape recording in which she repeated the statement twice. 

I even had a US ambassador complain once that I had too uncritically 
reproduced exactly what he had said in a press briefing and that I should have stepped 
back from what it was he was saying. 

Nobody is ever happy with what the reporter writes because the reporter never 
writes exactly what the source would have written. The problem is sometimes 
that a generalist reporter is not going to be expert in the source's field. It 
is then the source's responsbility in dealing with a non-specialist journalist 
to be clear and precise. But the problem for the source is also that the 
reporter is not in the business of grinding the source's axes for him or her. And 
a good thing, too.

Public figures will keep saying that their thoughts or meanings were betrayed 
by journalistic incompetents. It's the looselipped pol's easy way out.

Rony Koven


**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists 
on family favorites at AOL Food.
      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/4a47a740/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Wed May 21 10:33:14 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:33:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <c20.38455f80.356581dd@aol.com>
References: <c20.38455f80.356581dd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805210733y7fdf228r45b95673c862f33c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Roney

Nobody said that sending a report to an interviewee for quotes cross
checking is calling for censorship.  No, this is not the case since the
sound is there to counterproof any ensuing argument. Failure to do so may
lead to having the doors of news sources sealed.
That surely is the case with Adam who will have to think one million times
before granting an interview to the Spanish Newspaper whose Journalist
gaffed. H did not complain that he was quoted out of context or that that
"they blew his statement out of proportion" as American darling politician
of the moment (Barack Obama) would say.
On the other hand, in political reporting, John's fact could be a misfact to
Paul. That is why you have the 'quote out of context' palaver. IG deals with
standard procedures and things that need  being acquainted to before delving
into. There is no outsmarting people in IG that will invite the "quote out
of context" war slogan.

Mee thinks emphatically that on purely specialized subjects like Internet et
all, Journalists specialized in covering political news bits stay off or
should at least gather the bit for the desk incharge only. If they dabble in
a clumsy way as Adam stated, people like Suresh Rasba, with more incisive
words, will tear them to shreds. Believe me, Suresh has no qualms in that!!!
ANY WAY IT IS NOT A MATTER OF FEAR BUT THAT OF RELIABILITY

Cheers

On 5/21/08, KovenRonald at aol.com <KovenRonald at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All --
>
> I respectfully disagree that journalists have any obligation to submit
> texts beforehand to interviewees.
>
> In fact, doing so -- submitting in effect to a form of prior censorship --
> would be grounds for dismissal at major news outlets where I have worked.
>
> It is standard procedure for politicians to say when a statement later
> proves to be embarassing that they were misquoted or quoted "out of
> context." That can happen, of course. But in most cases of which I've been
> aware, that's just a copout by the speaker. The "quoted out of context"
> defense automatically produces sniggers amongst journalists.
>
> I had a case in which the late Shah's sister publicly denied having said
> something to me that prompted a former business partner to claim he had been
> cheated by her. There was a lawsuit over it. Her lawyer backed off when my
> lawyer produced my tape recording in which she repeated the statement twice.
>
>
> I even had a US ambassador complain once that I had too uncritically
> reproduced exactly what he had said in a press briefing and that I should
> have stepped back from what it was he was saying.
>
> Nobody is ever happy with what the reporter writes because the reporter
> never writes exactly what the source would have written. The problem is
> sometimes that a generalist reporter is not going to be expert in the
> source's field. It is then the source's responsbility in dealing with a
> non-specialist journalist to be clear and precise. But the problem for the
> source is also that the reporter is not in the business of grinding the
> source's axes for him or her. And a good thing, too.
>
> Public figures will keep saying that their thoughts or meanings were
> betrayed by journalistic incompetents. It's the looselipped pol's easy way
> out.
>
> Rony Koven
>
>
> **************
> Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at
> AOL Food.
> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/afd4d608/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 21 11:38:21 2008
From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:38:21 EDT
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
Message-ID: <d51.2a4b7ce7.35659bed@aol.com>

Dear Aaron --

There may be a clash of journalistic cultures here.

In the French tradition, in which I have also worked, showing quotes to 
interviewees is considered standard procedure. In the American tradition, it is an 
absolute No-No. 

The real point I was trying to get across is that your statement that it is 
an ethical violation not to show one's quotes to an interviewee is simply not a 
universally recognized principle.

Best regards, Rony Koven


**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? 
Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/8d8ddac5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Wed May 21 12:04:39 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 18:04:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <d51.2a4b7ce7.35659bed@aol.com>
References: <d51.2a4b7ce7.35659bed@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805210904x608d01dfvc162633a9a0bfe8d@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rony

I think that we Journalists are not Spies nor ill hearted Policemen looking
trap people and send them to jail but people who collect information in a
standard manner so as to bring about good governance and social justice.
Class of journalistic cultures apart, your reporter who goes to NAZA and
refuses
to collaborate with his source about the nitty gritty of spacecrafting and
go hom to waffle, will find the gates of NAZA closed the next time he comes
calling. Science reporting is one area where ONLY the news sources create
controversies and shoulder them and a reporter who dares create one gets
burnt.
This is the point I wan to drive home

Home

On 5/21/08, KovenRonald at aol.com <KovenRonald at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Aaron --
>
> There may be a clash of journalistic cultures here.
>
> In the French tradition, in which I have also worked, showing quotes to
> interviewees is considered standard procedure. In the American tradition, it
> is an absolute No-No.
>
> The real point I was trying to get across is that your statement that it is
> an ethical violation not to show one's quotes to an interviewee is simply
> not a universally recognized principle.
>
> Best regards, Rony Koven
>
>
> **************
> Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at
> AOL Food.
> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/5a00ee33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 21 13:23:14 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:23:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30805210610s59d48f83td34781a57faffb7b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185> <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info> <4833EA87.8080104@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <a6bc8cb30805210610s59d48f83td34781a57faffb7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3FAEF5CB-3242-4449-8A29-BE9436165338@psg.com>

Hi,

It really is a consideration as to whether the journalist agreed to  
allow Adam to read before publication.  If he did, and did not follow  
through then he behaved badly.    I do not think that having a signed  
piece of paper would matter, nor contacting the editor. If the  
journalist is going to be dishonorable, it is  almost certain that he  
or she is doing so with the complicity of the editor and pieces of  
paper mean very very little - except as kindling.

I think the only reasonable policy is to say as little as possible to  
the press and only when it suits your purposes, and when you do, know  
for sure that they are going to mangle your words to suit their  
political and sales objectives.  And if, perchance, you find one who  
is honorable and does a truthful job, thank your lucky stars for you  
will have met something as rare as truth.  And of course then you can  
feel free to talk to that one again. In fact I would recommend you  
treat the press as you would any other stranger on the street or on  
the net, with great caution until you know them and their reputation.

a.

Ps. no condemnation meant against the few members of the press that  
participate in the civil society lists.  I expect you are among the  
rare ones - otherwise the nonsense of this list would have long since  
amused interested readers worldwide.

On 21 May 2008, at 09:10, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:

> Adam wrote "I asked, as I usually do, that they send me the text  
> first before running it, but in my experience journalists usually  
> can't be bothered to do that".
> If I agree with the first part of the remark that bothers with  
> unprofessionalism by members of the the Press corps, I disagree with  
> the affirmation that "Journalists usually cannot bother to do it".  
> Journalism ethics allows for news sources interviewed to look at  
> transcripts of their statements (on demand) before the bulletin goes  
> to print. If Adam requested to read the transcript and the Spanish  
> Journalist refused, thus going ahead to mangle his statement or  
> proceed to utter mis-statement, the said Journalist did go against  
> ethics.
> What Adams had to do was to write to the Editor stating the mis- 
> statement and pointing out the fact that he requested to read the  
> interview and ascertain that words were not put in his mouth but the  
> Journalist did not respect it. The Editor will be bound to carry out  
> the correction and in sanction the Journalist for such gross  
> misconduct.
> So Journalists usually are not bothered to having interviews visaed  
> by interviewees. They are the interviewees letting bad Journalists  
> go their way by not insisting à priori to read the transcript before  
> engaging in a one-for-one.
> NEXT TIME, INSIST ON HAVING TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE  
> PUBLICATION PRIOR TO GRANTING THE INTERVIEW. YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE  
> THIS AGREEMENT IN WRITING BEFORE SITTING DOWN TO TALK. THIS IS MORE  
> SO IN AN AREA LIKE IG WHERE VERY FEW JOURNALMISTS HAVE SOME BACK  
> GROUND
>
> AARON
>
>
> On 5/21/08, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:  
> Robert Guerra schrieb:
> Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do
> we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to
> learn how to forget?)
> That was about personal information, not about stuff in newspapers.
>
> The argument is originally from Victor Mayer-Schönberger:
> <http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-022>
>
> But still:
> As I don't think we want the leading libraries of the world to  
> "forget/erase" books,
> Most libraries throw out books on a regular basis, because their  
> storage
> space is limited.
>
> I would be - very cautious - with the global knowledge resource (aka.
> the internet) forgetting facts and thus changing history..
> Interesting point. I also think that any corrections have to be  
> clearly
> marked.
>
> Best, Ralf
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
> -- 
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist/Outcome Mapper
> Special Assistant To The President
> Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
> ASAFE
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
> Tel. 237 3337 50 22
> Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
> Fax. 237 3342 29 70  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Wed May 21 13:42:41 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 19:42:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Up date on the Documents for the CSTD session
Message-ID: <200805211742.m4LHgjuq022485@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

This is a reminder on the documentation available for the up coming 11th
session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development in
relation to WSIS. The work of the CSTD will actually be based on 4 pieces of
documentation:

 

-          1. The UN Secretary General Report on the Progress
<http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/a63d72_en.pdf>  made in the implementation of
and follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS, which is actually a compilation of
inputs received from the UN Regional Commissions, the WSIS action lien
facilitators, GAID, UNGIS and other stakeholders, as well as some paragraphs
on Internet Governance and Enhance Cooperation, Financing Mechanisms and
Measuring ICT4D; It will be open for discussion on Monday 26 May afternoon
(discussion with Regional Commissions), on Tuesday 27 afternoon (general
debate on WSIS follow-up and implementation) and Thursday 29 afternoon
(dialogue with Action Line Facilitators).

 

-          2. The UN Secretary General Report on the Development-oriented
<http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162008d3_en.pdf>  policies for a
socio-economic inclusive information society, including access,
infrastructure and enabling environment, which is one of the two priority
themes that will be discussed by the CSTD during its 11th session (the
second priority theme being related to the initial mandate of the
Commission). This report will mainly be discussed and debated on Wednesday
28 May afternoon.

 

-          3. The Report
<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=9721&lang=1&intItemID=19
42>  of the Inter-sessional Panel which took place in Kuala-Lumpur on 28-30
May 2008. The main themes as well as the general WSIS implementation and
follow-up framework were addressed during this panel. Written comments sent
by CS entities are also summarised in this report (CONGO and the CS WG on
Financial mechanisms had sent written inputs to the CSTD panel).It will also
feed in the discussion on Wednesday 28 May afternoon.

 

-          4. Finally, there will be a WSIS follow-up 2008 Report, which
will actually be a note of the CSTD Secretariat. The report, which is
consultant’s work, was drafted on the basis of the provisional outline that
I circulated in last March. This report is not yet available on line at this
very moment, but might be circulated very shortly. The findings of this
report could feed into the CTSD throughout its session. 

 

Te full list of documents available is posted on the CTSD website:
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942
<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942&lang=1&m=15018&i
nfo=doc> &lang=1&m=15018&info=doc. I attached the provisional timetable of
the 11th session of the CSTD. 

 

Finally the Registration form / badge request form for ECOSOC and WSIS
accredited NGO is available on line:
http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs//ecn162008_registration_en.doc
<http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs/ecn162008_registration_en.doc> .

 

Who within this list is planning to participate in the CSTD-11? I would be
good to also have a preliminary exchange of information on issues
participants are planning to raise in the CSTD Plenary. I’ll let you know
shortly if CONGO is planning to intervene on some of these issues.

 

Best regards, 

 

Philippe

 

 

 

 

  _____  

De : Charles Geiger [mailto:Charles.Geiger at unctad.org] 
Envoyé : jeudi 15 mai 2008 10:15
À : ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org; philippe.dam at ngocongo.org; arreily at cisco.com
Objet : Fw: CRP.1

 


Dear colleagues 

The below is for your information. Later today, the UN-SG Report on WSIS
follow-up should appear on the Key Issues Page of the 11th session of the
CSTD. At the bottom of the page is a link to the Summary of the Kuala Lumpur
Panel (which should also be included in the "documents" section as
Conference Room Paper (CRP 1). 

The "WSIS follow-up 2008 Report" which is a note from the Secretariat
inteded to complete the UNSG Report should be available early next week. I
am working with the consultant on the final version now. It will probably
also come on the website as CRP 2. As soon as this additional Report is
ready, I shall send it to you, perhaps even in an unedited draft version. 

Best 

Charles 



----- Forwarded by Charles Geiger/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO on 15.05.2008 10:04 ----- 


Dong Wu/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO 

15.05.2008 09:57 


To

Angela Prescott/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


cc

Laila Sede/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA, Malou Pasinos/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA, Mongi
Hamdi/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA, Charles Geiger/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


Subject

Re: Fw: CRP.1Link
<Notes://C1257242003CB788/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/046B2805DF5428E6C
125744A0029DDB9> 

 


 

 



Thanks a lot, Angela, 
Dong 


Dong Wu, Ms
Economic Affairs Officer
Science and Technology
SITE
UN Conference on Trade and Development
Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Tel: 41-22-917-4171
Email: dong.wu at unctad.org
Website: http://www.unctad.org/stdev 




Angela Prescott/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO 

15.05.2008 09:42 


To

Dong Wu/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


cc

Laila Sede/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA, Malou Pasinos/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA, Mongi
Hamdi/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


Subject

Re: Fw: CRP.1Link
<Notes://C1256ABD00323995/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/9F2EF911D5A75573C
12574490055B394> 

 


 

 



Dear Dong 

We are experiencing a major  problem with the Web Content Management System
at the moment, which means that I am unable to create new "Document records"
in the list of documents for the CSTD. 

We hope to have this resolved in the next couple of days.   As an interim
solution, I have made the Report of the UN Secretary-General: WSIS follow-up
available from the "Key Issues" page. 
[
<http://www-dev.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942&lang=1&m=150
18>
http://www-dev.unctad.org/Templates/meeting.asp?intItemID=1942&lang=1&m=1501
8] 

I hope this is OK.  I will add it to the list of documents as soon as I can.


Thanks 

Angela 
Web Content Management Unit
UNCTAD/IAOS
Office: E-7087
Tel: +41(22) 917 5047
Fax: +41(22) 917 0051





Dong Wu/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO 

14/05/2008 17:37 


To

Laila Sede/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


cc

Angela Prescott/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA, Malou Pasinos/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA,
Mongi Hamdi/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


Subject

Fw: CRP.1

 


 

 



fyi 
----- Forwarded by Dong Wu/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO on 14.05.2008 17:36 ----- 


Malou Pasinos/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO 

02.04.2008 17:44 


To

Brigitte Ruby/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


cc

Mongi Hamdi/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA, Dong Wu/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO at UNGVA 


Subject

CRP.1

 


 

 



Dear Brigitte, 

As requested, please find attached the final version of the CRP.1 (Report on
the CSTD 2007-2008 intersessional panel) 



Thank you, 
Malou 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/adbca858/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda provisional 16 May revised.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 116736 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/adbca858/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 21 13:53:14 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 19:53:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] Action Line Facilitators meeting - Friday 23 May,
 10.00-13.00, ITU Room C2
Message-ID: <200805211753.m4LHrFmB029756@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

This is to remind you the meeting of the Action Lines Facilitators which is
going to take place on Friday 23 May from 10.00 to 13.00.

This meeting is open to all stakeholders. The purpose of this meeting is for
Action Line facilitators to exchange information on the AL facilitation
process. In addition to mutual reporting on initiatives and actions
undertaken by the various action lines, this meeting will be an opportunity
to also exchange ideas on ways to improve the general implementation process
by action lines at the international level.

 

We were informed that written contributions to the meeting could be sent
electronically at wsis-info at itu.int.

 

The invitation
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2008/cluster/docs/alfm/alfm-invitati
on-letter.doc>  letter and more information on this meeting is available at:
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2008/cluster/docs/alfm/alfm-invitatio
n-letter.doc.

 

CONGO will provide some oral inputs in this meeting.

It would be good if those CS persons participating in the AL meeting could
gather tomorrow afternoon between 6 and 6.45 pm at the ITU (I'll confirm the
venue tomorrow) to exchange some views on the process and maybe strategize
in the perspective of Friday morning's Consultation Meeting of WSIS Action
Line Facilitators.

 

Best, 

 

Philippe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080521/1f29cc11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 21 15:23:40 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 04:23:40 +0900
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <3FAEF5CB-3242-4449-8A29-BE9436165338@psg.com>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185>
 <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>
 <4833EA87.8080104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <a6bc8cb30805210610s59d48f83td34781a57faffb7b@mail.gmail.com>
 <3FAEF5CB-3242-4449-8A29-BE9436165338@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240804c45a271c958d@[10.5.0.193]>

Hi, just to be clear, it wasn't me who was misquoted, that was Bill's story.

Thanks for the advice about digg.  I am surprised 
about some of the other reactions.  But more 
later.

Thanks,

Adam



At 1:23 PM -0400 5/21/08, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>It really is a consideration as to whether the 
>journalist agreed to allow Adam to read before 
>publication.  If he did, and did not follow 
>through then he behaved badly.    I do not think 
>that having a signed piece of paper would 
>matter, nor contacting the editor. If the 
>journalist is going to be dishonorable, it is 
>almost certain that he or she is doing so with 
>the complicity of the editor and pieces of paper 
>mean very very little - except as kindling.
>
>I think the only reasonable policy is to say as 
>little as possible to the press and only when it 
>suits your purposes, and when you do, know for 
>sure that they are going to mangle your words to 
>suit their political and sales objectives.  And 
>if, perchance, you find one who is honorable and 
>does a truthful job, thank your lucky stars for 
>you will have met something as rare as truth. 
>And of course then you can feel free to talk to 
>that one again. In fact I would recommend you 
>treat the press as you would any other stranger 
>on the street or on the net, with great caution 
>until you know them and their reputation.
>
>a.
>
>Ps. no condemnation meant against the few 
>members of the press that participate in the 
>civil society lists.  I expect you are among the 
>rare ones - otherwise the nonsense of this list 
>would have long since amused interested readers 
>worldwide.
>
>On 21 May 2008, at 09:10, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
>
>>Adam wrote "I asked, as I usually do, that they 
>>send me the text first before running it, but 
>>in my experience journalists usually can't be 
>>bothered to do that".
>>If I agree with the first part of the remark 
>>that bothers with unprofessionalism by members 
>>of the the Press corps, I disagree with the 
>>affirmation that "Journalists usually cannot 
>>bother to do it". Journalism ethics allows for 
>>news sources interviewed to look at transcripts 
>>of their statements (on demand) before the 
>>bulletin goes to print. If Adam requested to 
>>read the transcript and the Spanish Journalist 
>>refused, thus going ahead to mangle his 
>>statement or proceed to utter mis-statement, 
>>the said Journalist did go against ethics.
>>What Adams had to do was to write to the Editor 
>>stating the mis-statement and pointing out the 
>>fact that he requested to read the interview 
>>and ascertain that words were not put in his 
>>mouth but the Journalist did not respect it. 
>>The Editor will be bound to carry out the 
>>correction and in sanction the Journalist for 
>>such gross misconduct.
>>So Journalists usually are not bothered to 
>>having interviews visaed by interviewees. They 
>>are the interviewees letting bad Journalists go 
>>their way by not insisting à priori to read the 
>>transcript before engaging in a one-for-one.
>>NEXT TIME, INSIST ON HAVING TO READ THE 
>>TRANSCRIPT BEFORE PUBLICATION PRIOR TO GRANTING 
>>THE INTERVIEW. YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE THIS 
>>AGREEMENT IN WRITING BEFORE SITTING DOWN TO 
>>TALK. THIS IS MORE SO IN AN AREA LIKE IG WHERE 
>>VERY FEW JOURNALMISTS HAVE SOME BACK GROUND
>>
>>AARON
>>
>>
>>On 5/21/08, Ralf Bendrath 
>><bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: Robert 
>>Guerra schrieb:
>>Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do
>>we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to
>>learn how to forget?)
>>That was about personal information, not about stuff in newspapers.
>>
>>The argument is originally from Victor Mayer-Schönberger:
>><http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-022>
>>
>>But still:
>>As I don't think we want the leading libraries 
>>of the world to "forget/erase" books,
>>Most libraries throw out books on a regular basis, because their storage
>>space is limited.
>>
>>I would be - very cautious - with the global knowledge resource (aka.
>>the internet) forgetting facts and thus changing history..
>>Interesting point. I also think that any corrections have to be clearly
>>marked.
>>
>>Best, Ralf
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 00:42:16 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:12:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [SANOG] Apply for ICANN fellowship
Message-ID: <014a01c8bbc6$37bd2300$a7376900$@net>



-----Original Message-----
From: sanog-bounce at sanog.org [mailto:sanog-bounce at sanog.org] On Behalf Of
Save Vocea
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:51 AM
To: sanog at sanog.org
Subject: [SANOG] Apply for ICANN fellowship

Hi all,
I know there are folks in this list that watch/follow ICANN related
announcements.
For the sake of others that weren't aware and want to get involved; ICANN
has posted a series of announcements this month and available from its
website http://www.icann.org/announcements/

To summarize:

1) Cairo, Egypt will host ICANN's 33rd International Public Meeting from 2-7
November 2008.

2) ICANN is offering fellowships to this Cairo meeting. Applications will be
accepted from now until 12:00 pm PDT (UTC -7) 3 July 2008. More information,
as well as a link to the application for a fellowship, is available online
at: http://www.icann.org/fellowships/

If you operate/manage your ccTLD registry or from government here's your
chance to submit an application and be involved in the ccNSO and GAC.

3) Also if interested a draft FY09 Operating Plan and Budget is being posted
for community review with the support of the Board Finance Committee (BFC).
The plan is available at:
http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy08-09-17may08.pd
f [PDF, 356K]
This draft plan is one more step in the planning cycle, to allow for
additional review and feedback. A public comment period has been opened and
will be closed on 17 June 2008. You can email comments directly at:
op-budget-fy2009 at icann.org

Please send me emails if you require further clarifications.

Regards,
Save Vocea
ICANN rep for Australasia/Pacific Islands

-- 
This is the SANOG (http://www.sanog.org/) mailing 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 wsis at ngocongo.org  Thu May 22 05:33:04 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:33:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] TR: 5 delegations draft resolution - submission to
 the CSTD for consideration
Message-ID: <1211448784-522e06cd795d1340b96f8ec65a3dd1f1@ngocongo.org>

Dear colleagues, 

 

Find attached the draft resolution circulated yesterday by El Salvador, Finland, France, Latvia and Switzerland for consideration at the 11th session of the CSTD. Ambassador’s Karklins’ informal note on the CSTD listserv attached below is self-explanatory.

 

The Draft resolution will be tabled and further discussed during next week’s session of the CSTD. It basically includes two main parts: 

-          An assessment and recommendations on the evolving challenges of the information society (broadband gap, growth of mobile telephony, network security);

-          An assessment and recommendations on the WSIS institutional follow-up and implementation architecture (in particular Action Lines Facilitation process and some comments on the IGF).

 

I encourage those who will participate in the CSTD session to discuss some elements of this text on the CS Plenary list.

 

Best, 

 

Ph

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De : UNCTAD - United Nations Commission on Science & Technology De la part de Janis Karklins
Envoyé : mercredi 21 mai 2008 19:26
À : 
Objet : 5 delegation submission to the CSTD for consideration

 

Dear commission members, colleagues

 

On behalf of co-authors, I have an honor to submit for your consideration the proposal of the draft resolution which CSTD may consider during its up-coming session. The draft was elaborated by El Salvador, Finland, France, Latvia and Switzerland and is meant to stimulate Commission’s consideration of the issues at stake. It has been a truly collaborative effort and we hope that proposal will find general support and will serve as a basis for further work.

 

Equally, five delegations were driven by desire to develop further working methods of the Commission and use inter-sessional period for substantive exchange. This time we did not meet our own target date for early submission of the proposal, but we still have few days before the opening of the session.

 

We would appreciate if Secretariat could circulate the proposed draft as a CRP on Monday, 26 May.

 

I hope you will give some considerations to the proposal and all five delegations are looking forward to the discussion of the draft proposal.

 

Sincerely

Janis Karklins

Ambassador of Latvia to France and UNESCO, Vice-chair of the CSTD

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080522/f607dc9f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSTD 2008 Draft resolution v	 20.05.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 52736 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080522/f607dc9f/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Thu May 22 06:00:57 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:00:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <p06240804c45a271c958d@10.5.0.193>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185>
	 <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info>
	 <4833EA87.8080104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <a6bc8cb30805210610s59d48f83td34781a57faffb7b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3FAEF5CB-3242-4449-8A29-BE9436165338@psg.com>
	 <p06240804c45a271c958d@10.5.0.193>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805220300u635dc746v41e2c4ef618f7c2b@mail.gmail.com>

Avri wrote:
"Ps. no condemnation meant against the few members of the press that
participate in the civil society lists"
Actually, no qualms as such Avri. I will instead take your wrath
before that statement, as a call for Journalists to be mindful of
their social responsibility, which is that of informing people
objectively and accurately. Mangling words to suit one's political
agenda kills the credibilty of a Journalist and the Press organ that
employs such a Journalist as well.

Again, Avri, Journalists survive due to information that they obtain
from sources among whom are those that are interviewed. If you go that
far to tell news sources to "to say as little as possible to the press
and only when it suits your purposes", then you are proponent to an
ill informed society. And when I look at the work you are doing here
on the forum (pouring newsy ideas), I wonder  if those words were not
cast into your ears by some one with malefic intent, That statement
doesn't sound Avri's. AT ALL. I have been on this forum for three
years already.

Cheers and let information flows without restriction.

Aaron

On 5/21/08, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi, just to be clear, it wasn't me who was misquoted, that was Bill's story.
>
> Thanks for the advice about digg.  I am surprised about some of the other
> reactions.  But more later.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> At 1:23 PM -0400 5/21/08, Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It really is a consideration as to whether the journalist agreed to allow
> Adam to read before publication.  If he did, and did not follow through then
> he behaved badly.    I do not think that having a signed piece of paper
> would matter, nor contacting the editor. If the journalist is going to be
> dishonorable, it is almost certain that he or she is doing so with the
> complicity of the editor and pieces of paper mean very very little - except
> as kindling.
> >
> > I think the only reasonable policy is to say as little as possible to the
> press and only when it suits your purposes, and when you do, know for sure
> that they are going to mangle your words to suit their political and sales
> objectives.  And if, perchance, you find one who is honorable and does a
> truthful job, thank your lucky stars for you will have met something as rare
> as truth. And of course then you can feel free to talk to that one again. In
> fact I would recommend you treat the press as you would any other stranger
> on the street or on the net, with great caution until you know them and
> their reputation.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > Ps. no condemnation meant against the few members of the press that
> participate in the civil society lists.  I expect you are among the rare
> ones - otherwise the nonsense of this list would have long since amused
> interested readers worldwide.
> >
> > On 21 May 2008, at 09:10, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Adam wrote "I asked, as I usually do, that they send me the text first
> before running it, but in my experience journalists usually can't be
> bothered to do that".
> > > If I agree with the first part of the remark that bothers with
> unprofessionalism by members of the the Press corps, I disagree with the
> affirmation that "Journalists usually cannot bother to do it". Journalism
> ethics allows for news sources interviewed to look at transcripts of their
> statements (on demand) before the bulletin goes to print. If Adam requested
> to read the transcript and the Spanish Journalist refused, thus going ahead
> to mangle his statement or proceed to utter mis-statement, the said
> Journalist did go against ethics.
> > > What Adams had to do was to write to the Editor stating the
> mis-statement and pointing out the fact that he requested to read the
> interview and ascertain that words were not put in his mouth but the
> Journalist did not respect it. The Editor will be bound to carry out the
> correction and in sanction the Journalist for such gross misconduct.
> > > So Journalists usually are not bothered to having interviews visaed by
> interviewees. They are the interviewees letting bad Journalists go their way
> by not insisting à priori to read the transcript before engaging in a
> one-for-one.
> > > NEXT TIME, INSIST ON HAVING TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE PUBLICATION
> PRIOR TO GRANTING THE INTERVIEW. YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE THIS AGREEMENT IN
> WRITING BEFORE SITTING DOWN TO TALK. THIS IS MORE SO IN AN AREA LIKE IG
> WHERE VERY FEW JOURNALMISTS HAVE SOME BACK GROUND
> > >
> > > AARON
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/21/08, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: Robert
> Guerra schrieb:
> > > Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do
> > > we teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to
> > > learn how to forget?)
> > > That was about personal information, not about stuff in newspapers.
> > >
> > > The argument is originally from Victor Mayer-Schönberger:
> > >
> <http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-022>
> > >
> > > But still:
> > > As I don't think we want the leading libraries of the world to
> "forget/erase" books,
> > > Most libraries throw out books on a regular basis, because their storage
> > > space is limited.
> > >
> > > I would be - very cautious - with the global knowledge resource (aka.
> > > the internet) forgetting facts and thus changing history..
> > > Interesting point. I also think that any corrections have to be clearly
> > > marked.
> > >
> > > Best, Ralf
> > >
> > >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Thu May 22 06:47:41 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:47:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] CS discussion meeting - this evening 22 May - 6.00-6.45
In-Reply-To: <200805211753.m4LHrFmB029756@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <1211453261-2ce2f0a37275dd5bd8dd40842fc539e2@ngocongo.org>

Further to my e-mail yesterday evening, I’d like to propose those present in Geneva to join for a short civil society discussion this evening (Thursday 22 May) at 6.00 to 6.45 pm, in the lounge space of the ITU Montbrillant-building entrance hall (Ground floor). We could have the following agenda:

            

1.       Taking stock of the ALF meetings

2.       Preparing for tomorrow morning’s Consultation Meeting of WSIS Action Line Facilitators

3.       Exchange of views on the CSTD draft resolution (if time allows) 

 

Please spread the word to the other CS colleagues present in Geneva.

 

I also remind you that an e.mail address has been set up by ITU for written contributions to tomorrow morning's meeting.

 

Ph

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] 
Envoyé : mercredi 21 mai 2008 19:53
À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; gov at wsis-gov.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc : 'Philippe Dam'; congo at ngocongo.org
Objet : [governance] Action Line Facilitators meeting - Friday 23 May, 10.00-13.00, ITU Room C2
Importance : Haute

 

Dear all, 

 

This is to remind you the meeting of the Action Lines Facilitators which is going to take place on Friday 23 May from 10.00 to 13.00.

This meeting is open to all stakeholders. The purpose of this meeting is for Action Line facilitators to exchange information on the AL facilitation process. In addition to mutual reporting on initiatives and actions undertaken by the various action lines, this meeting will be an opportunity to also exchange ideas on ways to improve the general implementation process by action lines at the international level.

 

We were informed that written contributions to the meeting could be sent electronically at wsis-info at itu.int.

 

The invitation letter and more information on this meeting is available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2008/cluster/docs/alfm/alfm-invitation-letter.doc.

 

CONGO will provide some oral inputs in this meeting.

It would be good if those CS persons participating in the AL meeting could gather tomorrow afternoon between 6 and 6.45 pm at the ITU (I’ll confirm the venue tomorrow) to exchange some views on the process and maybe strategize in the perspective of Friday morning’s Consultation Meeting of WSIS Action Line Facilitators.

 

Best, 

 

Philippe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080522/35c577e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 07:44:19 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 07:44:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30805220300u635dc746v41e2c4ef618f7c2b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185> <B1B16E4F-4215-408C-8FC7-1734FFF2C0FA@privaterra.info> <4833EA87.8080104@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <a6bc8cb30805210610s59d48f83td34781a57faffb7b@mail.gmail.com> <3FAEF5CB-3242-4449-8A29-BE9436165338@psg.com> <p06240804c45a271c958d@10.5.0.193> <a6bc8cb30805220300u635dc746v41e2c4ef618f7c2b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9F14FB6B-2786-48B1-8877-38266B682F94@psg.com>

Hi,

It makes sense to put out information, but I am not sure that it makes  
sense to give it to an intermediary from the press you don't already  
know have reason to trust.  fortunately we need the press less and  
less for actually putting out information.  this is perhaps why one  
see  commercial journalists turning into commentators everywhere one  
looks.

So yes, I believe in putting out as much information a possible. I  
believe that most everything  (with protections for individual  
privacy) should be done in open groups with recordings and other  
records no matter how uncomfortable that sometimes can make us.  So we  
should be pushing, and this group does,  for more information to be  
published.

Normally, these days, when people are talking to the press they are  
giving their impressions, their opinions.  I do believe they should  
not bother in most cases unless they know who they are talking to and  
know that journalist's reputation and goals.  I read a fairly wide  
spread of press and am constantly amazed at how differently the facts  
of the story are shaped based on the political persuasion of the paper  
being read.  Whether it is the reporter or the editors, they do seem  
to shape things for the needs of the prevailing viewpoint of the  
paper.  Just this, without the horror stories one hears all the time  
of people being misrepresented (and not just from people with post  
open mouth syndrom - everyone i know who is forced to talk to press  
does so recognizing the hazard one faces for misuse and abuse), is  
enough to make it clear that the press is not in the business of  
informing, but of convincing.  And that, in my view, makes the press  
something other then what it should be.

When I say one should do it only when it suits their purposes, i mean  
it.  If you know that someone is gong to twist what you say to suit  
their political goals then perhaps one should refrain from giving them  
the opportunity to misquote you for their purposes.  And if you do not  
know the journalist you are talking to, you should only talk to them  
if you are sure it is going to help your political goals. Certainly  
put all the information on the net for anyone to read and interpret,  
but I believe it is best to  keep the ego driven desire to talk to the  
press to a minimum.  And yes, unfortunately one of 'your own purposes'  
often includes balancing the danger of being misquoted with the danger  
of having the journalist just make something up.

a.

On 22 May 2008, at 06:00, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:

> Again, Avri, Journalists survive due to information that they obtain
> from sources among whom are those that are interviewed. If you go that
> far to tell news sources to "to say as little as possible to the press
> and only when it suits your purposes", then you are proponent to an
> ill informed society. And when I look at the work you are doing here
> on the forum (pouring newsy ideas), I wonder  if those words were not
> cast into your ears by some one with malefic intent, That statement
> doesn't sound Avri's. AT ALL. I have been on this forum for three
> years already.
>
> Cheers and let information flows without restriction.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Thu May 22 08:48:51 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 05:48:51 -0700
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185>
Message-ID: <45ed74050805220548y4ae44e2fhbb37cffa72aec0ba@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Adam,

My take and interp - on the e-fly, subject to emendation - here at ACM /
Yale Computer Freedom & Privacy Conference 08 you current query is right on
point. A lot on social networking and associated possible rights including a
suggested 'Right to Delete;.  The  myriad issues of non-
*contextuality*also hot (ref, Jon Pinkus and colleagues).

Can we discuss here, is it ok for governance domain, Internet etc. *rights
and duties approaches*, and what is a matter of choice, taste, or for
regulation - glad to see your post here, there's some interest in the actual
(USA)  cases I have brought on *cyberlibel*, and the most fun thing - Robert
Guerra's here too!

Looking forward to your discussions, LDMF,

P.S. gmail flickering, hope no typos remain.

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Does anyone know how to "un-digg" something.
>
> Say someone writes an article for a major newspaper about a report you
> wrote and the article got a number of key facts wrong.  But people are
> digg'ing the article and therefore linking and perpetuating the
> misinformation.
>
> Not suggesting any type of censorship, more a right of response/correction.
>
> Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do we
> teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to learn how to
> forget?)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus & Coordination of Singular Organizations on
Disabilities; Persons With Pain International, National Disability Party ,
United Nations education, values, and technical committees; Internet
Governance Forum.
.
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
2007 CONGO Nominee List for Strategy Council - Global Alliance For ICT
Deveopment (looking to next time).  Other Affiliations on Request.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080522/76bc3d0f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From lists at privaterra.info  Thu May 22 10:00:46 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:00:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
Message-ID: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>

Forwarding as it might be of interest to the list...

http://blog.veni.com/?p=486

The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?

by Veni Markovski @ 17:26. Filed under Information Society, in English

This article is mainly for people, who are familiar with the processes  
around the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the  
follow-up since 2005. It describes the contradiction between  
participants in the discussions around the Internet - how it develops,  
what is its future, which are the main problems, etc (often quoted as  
Internet Governance, IG).

     One very important point: there are many, many people,  
participating at the Internet governance discussions world-wide, who  
are humble, talented and workaholic people; who are going there with  
the idea that these discussions will bring the Internet closer to  
them; they should not be mistaken for lobbyists, or mixed with other  
participants in the discussions - governments, businesses or serious  
academic institutions, which study the phenomenon of public  
participation in defining certain policies, for example.

The WSIS Tunis Agenda gives the option of continuing the existence of  
the Internet Governance Forum after 2010.
The argument I’ve heard many times is that there are people who would  
be happy to see it not only going forward, but actually turning itself  
into a constant body, which is also a decision-making one. Some  
perhaps would remember the UNCTAD, which has started as a conference,  
and ended as a permanent intergovernmental body.

It is not a big secret that there are certain people from the civil  
society building their careers around the IGF, and if the IGF stops to  
exist after 2010, this will be bad for them. It is equally bad for  
them, if the IGF is widely considered as what it actually is - a place  
for discussion.

The problem is that while the IGF has some serious issues to discuss -  
for example how to make the Internet accessible and affordable for the  
5 billion people still not online, this discussion is of no interest  
for the people, who already have this affordable and accessible  
Internet.
At the same time, they are the ones raising their voices loud and  
clear in the discussions (in person, or on mailing lists). Typically,  
English is their mother language, they have constant and cheap access  
to the Internet, and sometimes they may be even people who have never  
traveled abroad, which does not prevent them from having an opinion  
about the rest of the world. They can write an e-mail faster than the  
rest of us can read it, because English is not our first, and in some  
cases not even second or third language. And they always dominate the  
discussions, making us feel guilty for even raising the issues that  
are of concern for our countries. So, in some cases the result is that  
the discussions are related to the topics of interest for them, not  
for us. That’s of little wonder, considering the fact that these are  
also the topics that cause heated debates, and make the headlines.
Who would argue that not many papers will write about the new fiber- 
optic network installed in Sofia, which makes 1000 Mbps Internet  
connection available for users, or the way the Africans are building  
their Internet access points, etc., but tons of paper and ink will be  
spent to write about the “.xxx” top level domain.

At ISOC-Bulgaria, we have been watching the discussions around IG more  
or less since 2001, and there are number of times when our voices  
couldn’t be heard, because of lack of knowledge of the procedures,  
cross-cultural differences, etc. At the same time, we managed to solve  
the problems of the Internet governance in our own country, and when  
we go out and ask what the others have done in this respect, the  
conversation immediately turns into attacks on personal level. There  
are people who are trying to make us feel as if we are some kind of a  
second-class citizens; people who are not allowed to have an opinion,  
which is different from the one, expressed most loudly.

Similar thoughts of mine brought a former colleague (some years ago we  
served together on the Board of CPSR), Hans Klein to made the  
following ironic comments in one mailing list:

     [These seem to be Veni's main points:]
     - we may be seeing the emergence of a professional class of civil  
society activists (”CS professionals”).
     - the CS professionals are alleged to have specific private  
interests. Their careers, income, and status depend on the Internet  
governance process.
     - the CS professionals are alleged to have a biased world view,  
based on easy access to the Internet, full command of the English  
language, and personal origins in USA and Western Europe.
     - representatives from less affluent, non-English-speaking  
societies may find themselves marginalized by this CS professional class

But let’s read them more into the context of what I’ve described in  
this article: Is it possible that there is a certain group of people,  
who are indeed not the general CSP, but Internet Governance Civil  
Society Professionals (IG-CSP)?

There are different motivations to become an IG-CSP. I think the  
appetite comes with the food, so people who may have joined a small  
preparatory committee meeting around the WSIS would end up as IG-CSP  
after a few years. Or someone, who has been not known to a crowd  
bigger than the one gathering for his birthday party, may suddenly be  
in the middle of a major political discussion at the UN level. Events  
like this can change many people*. One of the best ways to “test”  
someone, is to give them some power or authority. People who change,  
while in power, they will be the best candidates to join the IG-CSP  
group.

I’ve talked with many people in the community. Many of them agrees  
that there is something wrong in a model, where the same people, over  
and over again participate in discussions on topics defined by  
themselves, but with the potential to influence the way the Internet  
runs. Perhaps - as I said it once - the same way the ICANN Board  
changes every year with new directors replacing the ones whose terms  
have expired, perhaps the same way civil society participants should  
also rotate. E.g. if someone has been on one IGF, they should not go  
for the next one**.

But there are IG-CSP who are as if permanently subscribed for all  
events - ICANN meetings, ISOC meetings, IGF, working groups, advisory  
groups, special groups, special interests groups, users groups, task  
forces, scientific groups… you name them! It is not possible to count  
them. And the discussions are always the same and they come to the  
same point: they know what is best for the Internet. The IG-CSP  
believe they speak on behalf and in the name of all Internet users.  
No, not only the users - on behalf of the whole planet. Some may argue  
that it’s easier for the IG-CSP, esp. the ones coming from the West,  
to participate in such events, for a number of reasons - e.g. they  
have access to funding to finance their travels, they speak English.  
But who can say there are not experts, who can not go to these  
meetings, because they don’t have funding, or they don’t speak English?

     There are people who get really angry when they hear such a  
controversial topic like the one above. I’ve noticed that there is  
reaction against it among certain Americans, who discover themselves  
in the IG-CSP.

So, let’s try to say it differently: the IG-CSP exist, and there is  
nothing wrong with that. It will be wrong, if we do not recognize this  
fact, or try to avoid it.
There is something in the USA, which could be used as analogy - there  
are lobbyists everywhere, but in the USA they have to work under  
certain laws and obligations, and if they break them, they are out of  
business***.
If the existence of the IG-CSP is widely known, that will give every  
participant in the discussion about IG a better understanding of the  
discussion itself. And if we try to avoid it or pretend it does not  
exist, that on the contrary - will prevent us from this better  
understanding.

So, it is up to each of us to decide - and there shouldn’t be a rule  
or a law on that - if there is a new class of “representatives” of the  
civil society - a small, privileged group of people, or there is no  
such class. I believe I’ve already found the answer to this question  
for myself, and that helps me understand better what’s going on around  
the IGF.

_____
* - Let me share some personal perspective - for me being member of  
the Boards of ICANN, ISOC, CPSR, etc. has never made me feel special.  
For me it was just heavy work, lots of duties and responsibilities.  
Less sleep and more travel. I’ve never considered myself a different  
(special, privileged) person from the one I was, and I am, just  
because I was or I am sitting on a Board. I’ve found more value in  
heading the Bulgarian Internet Society, because we were leading the  
Internet revolution in Bulgaria. We’ve done a number of things for the  
first time in our country, and that is what made us think with relief,  
“OK, we did what we could; we achieved something. If someone else  
could have done better - please.”
** - We did it as ISOC-Bulgaria - I went on the first IGF in Athens,  
my colleague Ms. Dessi Pefeva, went for the second one in Rio de  
Janeiro.
*** - for the record, in Bulgaria this job has no legal framework
_____
note: The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any  
organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given  
way.
_____

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 22 10:26:27 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 19:56:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>

[applause, veni deserves my thanks for pointing to a very large elephant in
a very small, crowded room]

>      [These seem to be Veni's main points:]
>      - we may be seeing the emergence of a professional class of civil
> society activists ("CS professionals").

There are two classes of these:

* Lobbyist type organizations - that have a particular (political,
ideological) agenda and spend significant time on it.  The narrow focus Veni
describes tends to view IG through the "ICANN + RIR" filter.

* IG/CS "freeloaders" - plenty of so-called "NGOs" that exist solely to
receive funding, grants and fellowships, and translate these to paid
holidays abroad and a lavish lifestyle at home.  

* At least in some cases, I've seen people try for fellowships solely
because the amount they get in Euros / Dollars amounts to several times
their monthly salary in a local currency.

>      - the CS professionals are alleged to have specific private
> interests. Their careers, income, and status depend on the Internet
> governance process.

Yes.  So they take on the status of pressure groups, or lobbying
organizations.

>      - the CS professionals are alleged to have a biased world view,
> based on easy access to the Internet, full command of the English
> language, and personal origins in USA and Western Europe.

You get biased world views of two types.  One with a distinctly leftist,
post modernist bias (with, perhaps, more than a tinge of anti-americanism),
and another which is founded on personal equations and relationships built
from agreement or conflict in over a decade of multiple conferences and
forums.

>      - representatives from less affluent, non-English-speaking
> societies may find themselves marginalized by this CS professional
> class

Oh, but you get a "CS professional" class of its own from developing
countries too. Who can be just as vocal.  What they lack is capacity
building in at least some cases (but even first world CS types aren't immune
from needing that).  This is about "genuine players" shall we say, rather
than the bogus "NGOs" that exist solely to receive fellowship largesse.
You'll have seen both types before.

I have a friend, an Indian, who was local liaison for an org that had quite
a lot of aid to distribute among Kenyan NGOs.  So, some guy from the org
came over and addressed the audience .. a few of whom were muttering stuff
like "why doesn't this mzungu / white guy just sign the damned checks and
get out of here like all the others do". Too bad my friend spoke Swahili
fluently and could understand, I guess.

> But there are IG-CSP who are as if permanently subscribed for all
> events - ICANN meetings, ISOC meetings, IGF, working groups, advisory
> groups, special groups, special interests groups, users groups, task

This logic cuts both ways. Some people participate in all these because they
are genuinely committed. And they don't care particularly about being
elected to committees, or having their viewpoint seen as the One True
Consensus (tm).  And others gradually get an overweening motive - translate
all this into funding, tenure, grants, book contracts, etc etc.  Either way,
the IG communities are rather like a moebius strip, very big on continuity.

The argument you're looking for shouldn't be to push out everybody who is a
regular. It should be to get more regulars into the process, regulars who
have a clue about what they are talking about, so that they can make a
meaningful contribution.  Stakeholderism for the sake of stakeholderism
isn't something I want to be perpetuated .. aka getting orgs to participate
in large global events "just because".

suresh

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Thu May 22 10:56:59 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:56:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <45ed74050805220548y4ae44e2fhbb37cffa72aec0ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185>
	 <45ed74050805220548y4ae44e2fhbb37cffa72aec0ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805220756j58670efci1c1be90d218f904b@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all

Avri wrote: "It makes sense to put out information, but I am not sure
that it makes sense to give it to an intermediary from the press you
don't already know have reason to trust.  fortunately we need the
press less and less for actually putting out information.  this is
perhaps why one see  commercial journalists turning into commentators
everywhere one looks".

That sounds so compelling. My appeal is that the Journalists, Editors
or Journalism Teachers following this debate give a large ear to this
or we Journalists find oursleves out of jobs so sooner or later.
Avri's bitter and sincere remarks gives reason to the upsurge of what
is commonly referred to, now, as community Journalism on the net.
Here, people care less about communication principles and practise or
say, techiques of news gathering and writing.

On the other I think that you do not need hol out your fists against
"the press (that) is not in the business of informing, but of
convincing". No, Avri, when clear facts are given, one is convinced.
It is no disnomer. Remember the talk on appeasement currently rocking
the foreign policy debate of the US presidential election. The
Republican's are casting the Democrat Barack Obama for the dogs for
stating that he will talk to Presidents that are not friendly to the
US and bring them in through a diplomacy that has been tested before.
Then you had the Press that brought convincing evidences with photos
of Kennedy and Kroutschev, or Roosevelt and Stalin etc.
No, Avri, you would want to see some one playing the watch dog some
where or we have a situation where I will jump up say some thing nasty
and false thing about you and ride home safely, Would you?

Cheers and let credible Journalism abound.

Aaron

On 5/22/08, linda misek-falkoff <ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> My take and interp - on the e-fly, subject to emendation - here at ACM /
> Yale Computer Freedom & Privacy Conference 08 you current query is right on
> point. A lot on social networking and associated possible rights including a
> suggested 'Right to Delete;.  The  myriad issues of non- contextuality also
> hot (ref, Jon Pinkus and colleagues).
>
> Can we discuss here, is it ok for governance domain, Internet etc. rights
> and duties approaches, and what is a matter of choice, taste, or for
> regulation - glad to see your post here, there's some interest in the actual
> (USA)  cases I have brought on cyberlibel, and the most fun thing - Robert
> Guerra's here too!
>
> Looking forward to your discussions, LDMF,
>
> P.S. gmail flickering, hope no typos remain.
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> > Does anyone know how to "un-digg" something.
> >
> > Say someone writes an article for a major newspaper about a report you
> wrote and the article got a number of key facts wrong.  But people are
> digg'ing the article and therefore linking and perpetuating the
> misinformation.
> >
> > Not suggesting any type of censorship, more a right of
> response/correction.
> >
> > Someone raised a related kind of issue during the Rio IGF -- how do we
> teach the Internet how to forget (or do we need the Internet to learn how to
> forget?)
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
> *Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
> Individual e-post.
> For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
> (CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
> International Disability Caucus & Coordination of Singular Organizations on
> Disabilities; Persons With Pain International, National Disability Party ,
> United Nations education, values, and technical committees; Internet
> Governance Forum.
> .
> Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
> 2007 CONGO Nominee List for Strategy Council - Global Alliance For ICT
> Deveopment (looking to next time).  Other Affiliations on Request.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Thu May 22 12:02:32 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 00:02:32 +0800
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
Message-ID: <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>

On 22/05/2008, at 10:26 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

>>     [These seem to be Veni's main points:]
>>     - we may be seeing the emergence of a professional class of civil
>> society activists ("CS professionals").
>
> There are two classes of these:
>
> * Lobbyist type organizations - that have a particular (political,
> ideological) agenda and spend significant time on it.  The narrow  
> focus Veni
> describes tends to view IG through the "ICANN + RIR" filter.
>
> * IG/CS "freeloaders" - plenty of so-called "NGOs" that exist solely  
> to
> receive funding, grants and fellowships, and translate these to paid
> holidays abroad and a lavish lifestyle at home.

I'm not privy to what may have prompted Veni's rant, and I don't  
consider I'm personally in the firing line here (I'm currently  
unemployed and haven't made a penny from IG), but this seems quite  
unfair.  The other stakeholder groups are much better resourced to  
participate in IG activities than civil society is, but we don't  
impute the same ill motivations to them.

In any case, I've seen little to suggest that IG is such a gravy train  
as you make it out to be.  The IGF, in particular, doesn't even have  
enough money to fund a decent Web site.  What meagre funds do  
intermittently flow to "civil society professionals" to help fund  
their research and activism is a pittance against the resources of  
governments and the private sector.  Yet in my estimation they make  
far better use of it.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 22 12:06:17 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 21:36:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <026701c8bc25$c5c87640$515962c0$@net>

Its not a gravy train for anybody from Oz, or from the USA. For someone from
Africa, or Asia .. well, the exchange rate means you are onto quite a good
thing, especially if you find a grant or fellowship.

Having run fellowships for conferences myself (APRICOT, say) - I know just
how much pent up demand is there and how many people get facilitated to come
to these conferences. And I know just how many people try to abuse this
system to get themselves an expenses paid vacation.

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:33 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
> 
> On 22/05/2008, at 10:26 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 
> >>     [These seem to be Veni's main points:]
> >>     - we may be seeing the emergence of a professional class of
> civil
> >> society activists ("CS professionals").
> >
> > There are two classes of these:
> >
> > * Lobbyist type organizations - that have a particular (political,
> > ideological) agenda and spend significant time on it.  The narrow
> > focus Veni
> > describes tends to view IG through the "ICANN + RIR" filter.
> >
> > * IG/CS "freeloaders" - plenty of so-called "NGOs" that exist solely
> > to
> > receive funding, grants and fellowships, and translate these to paid
> > holidays abroad and a lavish lifestyle at home.
> 
> I'm not privy to what may have prompted Veni's rant, and I don't
> consider I'm personally in the firing line here (I'm currently
> unemployed and haven't made a penny from IG), but this seems quite
> unfair.  The other stakeholder groups are much better resourced to
> participate in IG activities than civil society is, but we don't
> impute the same ill motivations to them.
> 
> In any case, I've seen little to suggest that IG is such a gravy train
> as you make it out to be.  The IGF, in particular, doesn't even have
> enough money to fund a decent Web site.  What meagre funds do
> intermittently flow to "civil society professionals" to help fund
> their research and activism is a pittance against the resources of
> governments and the private sector.  Yet in my estimation they make
> far better use of it.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 12:33:32 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:33:32 -0700
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
Message-ID: <5A26A605-1DBC-4452-8807-1AEEF04273A8@internet.law.pro>

> On May 22, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> * IG/CS "freeloaders" - plenty of so-called "NGOs" that exist solely  
> to
> receive funding, grants and fellowships, and translate these to paid
> holidays abroad and a lavish lifestyle at home.

I'm going to take a deep breath and a day or two to digest Veni's  
entire post, but the idea that anyone would view CS as the path to a  
lavish lifestyle is plain silly. I know most of the people who post to  
this list, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that if they  
spent their time on virtually any commercial endeavor, they would make  
substantially more money.

     -- Bret


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4140 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080522/b9ccc69d/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 12:54:21 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:54:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <5A26A605-1DBC-4452-8807-1AEEF04273A8@internet.law.pro>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <5A26A605-1DBC-4452-8807-1AEEF04273A8@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <20080522165421.GA17745@hserus.net>

Bret Fausett [22/05/08 09:33 -0700]:
> I'm going to take a deep breath and a day or two to digest Veni's entire 
> post, but the idea that anyone would view CS as the path to a lavish 
> lifestyle is plain silly. I know most of the people who post to this 
> list, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that if they spent 
> their time on virtually any commercial endeavor, they would make  
> substantially more money.

Like I said, Bret, dont view this from "first world CS" perspectives.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 13:09:32 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:09:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080522165421.GA17745@hserus.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <5A26A605-1DBC-4452-8807-1AEEF04273A8@internet.law.pro> <20080522165421.GA17745@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <4835A8CC.3050901@wzb.eu>

Wolfgang, could you not post again your reply to Veni you sent to the 
public voice list? I think should settle this useless discussion.
jeanette

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Bret Fausett [22/05/08 09:33 -0700]:
>> I'm going to take a deep breath and a day or two to digest Veni's 
>> entire post, but the idea that anyone would view CS as the path to a 
>> lavish lifestyle is plain silly. I know most of the people who post to 
>> this list, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that if they 
>> spent their time on virtually any commercial endeavor, they would 
>> make  substantially more money.
> 
> Like I said, Bret, dont view this from "first world CS" perspectives.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 22 14:05:13 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 21:05:13 +0300
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
	 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>

Dewd,

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
>
> I'm not privy to what may have prompted Veni's rant, and I don't consider
> I'm personally in the firing line here (I'm currently unemployed and haven't
> made a penny from IG), but this seems quite unfair.  The other stakeholder
> groups are much better resourced to participate in IG activities than civil
> society is, but we don't impute the same ill motivations to them.

EXCUSE ME??  Did you miss the thread of a week ago, entitled "2008
Nomcom Report"?

Did you read the part of the Nomcom report that said that employees of
existing IG bodies "might" have "potential" conflicts of interest, and
even though they may be CS, well, we aren't going to nominate them??

I pointed out potential conflicts for CS folk then.  Veni is just
articulating many of the things I said.

Don't you feel at all uncomfortable participating in a group who deny
part of that group access to the same opportunities because they work
for x, y, or z, when the folk who did the denying have the EXACT SAME
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS, but work for a, b or c?

I say shame on the Nomcom folk who cooked this mess up, and shame on
all members who don't speak out against this gross injustice!

"The people who are in the room make the decision" is NOT the way the
Internet was governed since it's inception, and it is NOT the way this
caucus should operate going forward.

To that end, I formally propose we amend

http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html  point 4

to read

4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be
disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being
chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified
from being chosen. No disqualification can be made based upon the type
of employment undertaken by members.

IIUC, we need 10 "yeas" to amend the charter, my query from last week
still stands is this part of the charter?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Thu May 22 16:20:31 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:20:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D55AE7B0-DA68-428E-B93B-0F0C36A8672C@psg.com>

hi,

my guesses to the questions:

On 22 May 2008, at 14:05, McTim wrote:

>
> IIUC, we need 10 "yeas" to amend the charter,

Not according to my reading.  From the Charter:

 > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed
 > by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by
 > no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC.
 > The membership requirements for amending the charter
 > are based on the most currently available voters list. In
 > amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous
 > election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.


To me this means that if 10 people or more agree that it needs to be  
amended, they can propose an amendment, and if 2/3 of the members  
approve then it is ammended.  "Members" is  defined as the voters from  
the previous election (which are supposed to happen yearly so it is  
not as absurd as it might seem today)

> my query from last week
> still stands is this part of the charter?


from the charter:

 > 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.

Certainly using a nomcom is part of the charter. And changing that  
would require amendment. Also since it points to a specific process, I  
would argue that this process is included by reference in the charter  
and thus changing it would also require amendment.

hope my personal interpretation helps,

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  Thu May 22 16:28:27 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:28:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [offlist] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30805220756j58670efci1c1be90d218f904b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185> <45ed74050805220548y4ae44e2fhbb37cffa72aec0ba@mail.gmail.com> <a6bc8cb30805220756j58670efci1c1be90d218f904b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DCA9A4BB-E824-4080-9C63-6AA918D33E0F@psg.com>


On 22 May 2008, at 10:56, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:

> Avri's bitter and sincere remarks


i am not bitter (at least not in this case :) just practical.

it is like safe sex and safe computing.  be very careful who you have  
relations 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu May 22 16:50:21 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 23:50:21 +0300
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080522165421.GA17745@hserus.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
	 <5A26A605-1DBC-4452-8807-1AEEF04273A8@internet.law.pro>
	 <20080522165421.GA17745@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805221350g1f9ec5a9me7712164ed13f204@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Like I said, Bret, dont view this from "first world CS" perspectives.

Exactly, here in Uganda such "facilitation" as it is called here, is
an important source of income for many CS types.

-- 
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 May 22 23:02:02 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 23:02:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> 
> Did you read the part of the Nomcom report that said that employees of
> existing IG bodies "might" have "potential" conflicts of interest, and
> even though they may be CS, well, we aren't going to nominate them??

This is just common sense. People who work for organizations that make
governance decisions (e.g., an RIR or ICANN or ITU) cannot be considered
impartial judges of the criticisms, assessments or policies that should
be applied to their own organization. 

I just sat on a program committee for an academic organization, to which
I submitted a paper. Of course I recused myself from evaluating my own
proposal, and the proposal of any of my students. 

Same principle.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 04:25:25 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:25:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>

Milton L Mueller ha scritto:
> This is just common sense. People who work for organizations that make
> governance decisions (e.g., an RIR or ICANN or ITU) cannot be considered
> impartial judges of the criticisms, assessments or policies that should
> be applied to their own organization. 
> 
> I just sat on a program committee for an academic organization, to which
> I submitted a paper. Of course I recused myself from evaluating my own
> proposal, and the proposal of any of my students. 
> 
> Same principle.

Milton, if you really believe in this, then you should conclude that no 
person working for or holding positions in a RIR, ICANN, ITU etc. should 
be allowed to participate in the IGF...

The IGF AG is just an organizing committee, it is not tasked with 
"judging the criticisms, assessments or policies" to be applied to IG 
organizations. I too was disappointed by seeing that the first IGF AG 
was stuffed with a bit too many people strongly connected to ICANN, but 
that doesn't mean that the right solution is to rule them out entirely.

In any case, when I first read that part of our Nomcom report, I thought 
they were meaning "people who are employees of IG-related NGOs", not 
"people who are employees of RIRs"... I guess that everyone tends to see 
the potential conflicts in other people and to miss the potential 
conflicts in their own eyes.

But if the point is that your employer might be making money out of the 
IG world and so might exploit your position in the IGF AG, then no 
employee of any organization having whatsoever connection to IG should 
be allowed: I don't see how a University or an NGO getting grants to 
study IG is different from a RIR getting money to assign IP address blocks.
-- 
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 vb at bertola.eu  Fri May 23 04:42:09 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:42:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu>

Robert Guerra ha scritto:
> Forwarding as it might be of interest to the list...

I think I share most points of Veni's post, except perhaps that in the 
first world the advantage for "professionals" might not be in terms of 
"lavish lifestyle", but rather of non-monetary rewards such as 
intellectual prestige, speaking opportunities, visibility on specialized 
media, better career chances and so on.

In principle, there is a healthy relationship in which a skilled 
individual devotes valuable time to voluntary positions, and in exchange 
he/she gets non-monetary rewards of that kind.

The relationship starts to become less healthy when the individual puts 
glue between his/her bottom and the chair, and cannot be removed from 
those positions unless twenty big sailors from the port of Singapore 
grab him/her and throw him/her off the window (in some cases, this 
implies throwing away the chairs as well).

Thus, the apparent reluctance to any significant and formalized rotation 
mechanism in the membership of the IGF AG makes me think that (for a few 
of its members) we should schedule one of the remaining IGF meetings in 
the port of Singapore.

Regards,
-- 
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 suresh at hserus.net  Fri May 23 05:03:30 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:33:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <031101c8bcb3$e097ed00$a1c7c700$@net>

> Thus, the apparent reluctance to any significant and formalized
> rotation mechanism in the membership of the IGF AG makes me think that
(for a
> few of its members) we should schedule one of the remaining IGF meetings
in
> the port of Singapore.

Why not? Great food, lots of sights to see, cheap flights from almost
anywhere in the world ..

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Fri May 23 08:46:10 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:46:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [offlist] how to un-digg?
In-Reply-To: <DCA9A4BB-E824-4080-9C63-6AA918D33E0F@psg.com>
References: <p0624082dc458a777d659@192.168.101.185>
	 <45ed74050805220548y4ae44e2fhbb37cffa72aec0ba@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a6bc8cb30805220756j58670efci1c1be90d218f904b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DCA9A4BB-E824-4080-9C63-6AA918D33E0F@psg.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805230546p2ffbc9a1nffa26f85fb0f7fe@mail.gmail.com>

Oh no,; Avri. I was refering of the bitter truth in your remarks that
causes moral jitters to real Journalists if they come  accross it.
There was a bitter truth in your practicals. And this is what is
needed for the birth of the Lord Northcliffian Journalism.

Cheers

Aaron


On 5/22/08, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
> On 22 May 2008, at 10:56, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
>
> > Avri's bitter and sincere remarks
> >
>
>
> i am not bitter (at least not in this case :) just practical.
>
> it is like safe sex and safe computing.  be very careful who you have
> relations 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
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri May 23 08:48:08 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:48:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Milton, if you really believe in this, then you should conclude that
no
> person working for or holding positions in a RIR, ICANN, ITU etc.
should
> be allowed to participate in the IGF...

Absolutely not, see below. Their participation is vital. We simply have
to recognize, as the tame language of the Nomcom committee report did,
that there is a "potential conflict of interest." 

> The IGF AG is just an organizing committee, it is not tasked with
> "judging the criticisms, assessments or policies" to be applied to IG
> organizations. 

The AG is, for better or worse, an agenda-setting committee. It
determines what topics are highlighted and considered at the Forum and
how prominent they are -- and who gets to speak about them. It is wrong
to say that the AG just organizes logistics, and you know that, VB. (If
it is just an "organizing committee" then why should anyone complain
about being limited or excluded from it?) 

Unfortunately, as we know all too well from its first two meetings,
there are people associated with some governance organizations who
deliberately attempt to foreclose discussion of topics that might make
them uncomfortable. Not all of them, but some. Some people in the RIRs
and ICANN, in contrast are quite reasonable and open. 

So we simply have to be aware of that and not pretend that a committee
stacked with -- for example -- ICANN staff and Board, domain name
registries under contract to ICANN, etc., is going to be an impartial
judge of what kind of issues should be discussed about ICANN. 

As I said before, this is just common sense, and the harder certain
people associated with I* organizations come down against such a simple
and obvious point the more they indicate to the rest of us that their
intention is indeed one of protecting themselves and their buddies from
scrutiny. 

> I too was disappointed by seeing that the first IGF AG
> was stuffed with a bit too many people strongly connected to ICANN,
but
> that doesn't mean that the right solution is to rule them out
entirely.

Then you have conceded the main thrust of my point. And who said
anything about "ruling them out entirely?" Really, the level of
discourse on this list is just getting silly. Remember, this whole
discussion was prompted by some language in the noncom report that said
that wsuch people might have a "potential conflict of interest." 

> I don't see how a University or an NGO getting grants to
> study IG is different from a RIR getting money to assign IP address
> blocks.

Vittorio, if you can't see that difference you are blind. The authority
to assign IP address blocks is an exclusive and globally applicable
governance function that must be publicly accountable. This is like
saying there is no difference between the national telecom regulator and
a neighborhood advocacy group that forms to influence 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 23 09:23:55 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:23:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
	 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805230623h6a3260dej1c193438f0ef0780@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
>> Milton, if you really believe in this, then you should conclude that
> no
>> person working for or holding positions in a RIR, ICANN, ITU etc.
> should
>> be allowed to participate in the IGF...
>
> Absolutely not, see below. Their participation is vital. We simply have
> to recognize, as the tame language of the Nomcom committee report did,
> that there is a "potential conflict of interest."

ah , but the NomCom did more than just "recognize", while at the same
time, NOT recognizing their own "potential conflicts of interest."

>
>> The IGF AG is just an organizing committee, it is not tasked with
>> "judging the criticisms, assessments or policies" to be applied to IG
>> organizations.
>
> The AG is, for better or worse, an agenda-setting committee. It
> determines what topics are highlighted and considered at the Forum and
> how prominent they are -- and who gets to speak about them. It is wrong
> to say that the AG just organizes logistics, and you know that, VB. (If
> it is just an "organizing committee" then why should anyone complain
> about being limited or excluded from it?)
>
> Unfortunately, as we know all too well from its first two meetings,
> there are people associated with some governance organizations who
> deliberately attempt to foreclose discussion of topics that might make
> them uncomfortable. Not all of them, but some. Some people in the RIRs
> and ICANN, in contrast are quite reasonable and open.

But this exclusion, extends to more than just the RIRs and ICANN
doesn't it?  Theoretically, NREN staff, ccTLD staff, (even if they are
NGO employed), CAIDA, ISOC, ROSNIIROS, NLnet Labs, Merit Networks,
IIJ, ISC, ISI, non-profit IXP staff, JPNIC, and dozens more CS
Internet coordination and infrastructure groups.  Potentially, we
could be excluding thousands of people.

Do we really want to do that Milton?

>
> So we simply have to be aware of that and not pretend that a committee
> stacked with -- for example -- ICANN staff and Board, domain name
> registries under contract to ICANN, etc., is going to be an impartial
> judge of what kind of issues should be discussed about ICANN.
>

Agreed, nor should we pretend that a committee stacked with, for
example, Internet Governance Framework windmill tilters, such as
yourself and Parminder is going to be an impartial
judge of what kind of issues should be discussed. No one is impartial
Milton.  If the NomCom had excluded university professors, I imagine
you'd be up in arms PDQ!



> As I said before, this is just common sense, and the harder certain
> people associated with I* organizations come down against such a simple
> and obvious point the more they indicate to the rest of us that their
> intention is indeed one of protecting themselves and their buddies from
> scrutiny.

It's about fairness, and the rule of law.  The nomCom broke the rules
laid out for it.  They have discriminated against a class of folk
based on type of employer.  Isn't CS supposed to be AGAINST this sort
of thing?

>
>> I too was disappointed by seeing that the first IGF AG
>> was stuffed with a bit too many people strongly connected to ICANN,
> but
>> that doesn't mean that the right solution is to rule them out
> entirely.
>
> Then you have conceded the main thrust of my point. And who said
> anything about "ruling them out entirely?" Really, the level of
> discourse on this list is just getting silly. Remember, this whole
> discussion was prompted by some language in the noncom report that said
> that wsuch people might have a "potential conflict of interest."

No Milton, this whole discussion was prompted by some language in the
noncom report that said;

"not accept nominations from full time
employees of existing Internet governance organizations"

>
>> I don't see how a University or an NGO getting grants to
>> study IG is different from a RIR getting money to assign IP address
>> blocks.
>
> Vittorio, if you can't see that difference you are blind.

Then sign me up for a seeing eye dog.

Both the CS-IGP NGO and the RIR NGO have their own agendas to push.
That doesn't mean that one is not CS, nor does it mean they should be
excluded from our process.  RIRs don't exclude "us" from their
processes, why should we exclude them from a possible nomination?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 09:24:24 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:24:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>

Milton L Mueller ha scritto:
> Unfortunately, as we know all too well from its first two meetings,
> there are people associated with some governance organizations who
> deliberately attempt to foreclose discussion of topics that might make
> them uncomfortable. Not all of them, but some. Some people in the RIRs
> and ICANN, in contrast are quite reasonable and open. 

Then, the issue is how do we create transparent processes in the IGF AG 
so that issues cannot be foreclosed by certain stakeholders. But these 
processes should be fair and equal to all stakeholders, not directed 
against some of them specifically.

> So we simply have to be aware of that and not pretend that a committee
> stacked with -- for example -- ICANN staff and Board, domain name
> registries under contract to ICANN, etc., is going to be an impartial
> judge of what kind of issues should be discussed about ICANN. 

And why a leader of one of ICANN's constituencies (e.g. you) should be 
impartial about ICANN while a member of another constituency (e.g. a 
domain name registry representative) should not?

> As I said before, this is just common sense, and the harder certain
> people associated with I* organizations come down against such a simple
> and obvious point the more they indicate to the rest of us that their
> intention is indeed one of protecting themselves and their buddies from
> scrutiny. 

Sure, everyone who disagrees with you is in bad faith.

> Then you have conceded the main thrust of my point. And who said
> anything about "ruling them out entirely?" Really, the level of
> discourse on this list is just getting silly. Remember, this whole
> discussion was prompted by some language in the noncom report that said
> that wsuch people might have a "potential conflict of interest." 

And that some people considered that "potential conflict of interest" as 
a possible cause for dismissal of the nomination.

>> I don't see how a University or an NGO getting grants to
>> study IG is different from a RIR getting money to assign IP address
>> blocks.
> 
> Vittorio, if you can't see that difference you are blind. The authority
> to assign IP address blocks is an exclusive and globally applicable
> governance function that must be publicly accountable. This is like
> saying there is no difference between the national telecom regulator and
> a neighborhood advocacy group that forms to influence it. 

This is true only if you embrace the traditional view that there is a 
"regulator" at the top and everyone else lobbying it from the bottom. 
But if we really believe that IG is a multi-stakeholder enterprise or a 
"grand collaboration", then no function is special - RIRs perform some 
IG functions, NGOs perform some other ones, and they interact on a 
peer-to-peer basis.
-- 
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  Fri May 23 09:30:20 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:30:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <4836C6EC.9060601@wzb.eu>




> Thus, the apparent reluctance to any significant and formalized rotation 
> mechanism in the membership of the IGF AG makes me think that 

Excuse me? Why did we go through all this trouble if there was no 
rotation mechanism? It cannot have escaped you that up to a third of all 
MAG members will be replaced later this year. Why else would you have 
applied for joining the MAG? It just takes a while to organize the 
rotation as it has to be coordinated with UN headquarters.
jeanette

(for a few
> of its members) we should schedule one of the remaining IGF meetings in 
> the port of Singapore.
> 
> Regards,
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri May 23 10:39:58 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:39:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> But this exclusion, extends to more than just the RIRs and ICANN
> doesn't it?  Theoretically, NREN staff, ccTLD staff, (even if they are
> NGO employed), CAIDA, ISOC, ROSNIIROS, NLnet Labs, Merit Networks,
> IIJ, ISC, ISI, non-profit IXP staff, JPNIC, and dozens more CS
> Internet coordination and infrastructure groups.  Potentially, we
> could be excluding thousands of people.

Hold on. I thought we were discussing who the _IGC_ (this caucus) should
nominate to be on the MAG. We are not discussing who should be
categorically excluded from participation in IGF as a whole. 

> Do we really want to do that Milton?

If "we" means IGC, possibly not (see comments below) If it means IGF as
a whole, certainly not. The IGC/IGF distinction is important, of course.

As I have said, I think it is relevant and legitimate to recognize a
"potential conflict of interest" between IG agencies' staff and
principals and the Forum's discussion of those agencies' policies and
processes. 

But as a hypothetical, supposed someone from RIR staff or a regular
consultant to a RIR participated in our discussions and showed that s/he
was an independent, intelligent and critical thinker who recognized
problems, was not afraid to identify and talk about problems, and was
willing to entertain reform proposals. It is quite possible that such a
person could, over time, generate trust among the members of IGC, and
that s/he would be nominated to represent civil society on the MAG. 

Of course, we should be aware of organizational constraints (could this
person be muzzled or fired by their organization if they said "the wrong
thing?")  

So we may agree, there should be no simplistic, categorical exclusion of
people from nongovernmental I* organizations, but of course we should be
aware of potential conflicts of interest, imbalances, hidden agendas,
and dual identities. 

--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 mueller at syr.edu  Fri May 23 10:48:54 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:48:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Then, the issue is how do we create transparent processes in the IGF
AG
> so that issues cannot be foreclosed by certain stakeholders. But these
> processes should be fair and equal to all stakeholders, not directed
> against some of them specifically.

Again, a necessary correction: we are not talking about what the IGF
should do here. We are talking about who _this caucus_ should nominate
to represent them on the MAG. 

The distinction is crucial. 

If this caucus doesn't nominate these other stakeholders they have
plenty of other opportunities to get on the MAG. 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at malcolm.id.au  Fri May 23 11:10:23 2008
From: Jeremy at malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 23:10:23 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au>

On 23/05/2008, at 10:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Again, a necessary correction: we are not talking about what the IGF
> should do here. We are talking about who _this caucus_ should nominate
> to represent them on the MAG.
>
> The distinction is crucial.
>
> If this caucus doesn't nominate these other stakeholders they have
> plenty of other opportunities to get on the MAG.

Also, if you don't agree with the approach taken by this year's  
NomCom, you may take comfort in the knowledge that they will most  
likely be gone when the next panel is randomly selected.  The more  
vociferous the objectors are, presumably the more likely they are to  
put their hands up for the next NomCom, and therefore the more likely  
to find places on it.  (And in the meantime, this is a timely debate  
for us to have for future NomComs' guidance.)

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 23 11:24:55 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:24:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
	 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805230824i18b5cb7bqe2e8d8c58457b353@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>> But this exclusion, extends to more than just the RIRs and ICANN
>> doesn't it?  Theoretically, NREN staff, ccTLD staff, (even if they are
>> NGO employed), CAIDA, ISOC, ROSNIIROS, NLnet Labs, Merit Networks,
>> IIJ, ISC, ISI, non-profit IXP staff, JPNIC, and dozens more CS
>> Internet coordination and infrastructure groups.  Potentially, we
>> could be excluding thousands of people.
>
> Hold on. I thought we were discussing who the _IGC_ (this caucus) should
> nominate to be on the MAG.

We are. We are saying to anyone working for these orgs, that "you may
be a non-profit, and you may be CS, you may be part of the list, but
when push comes to shove, you won't be eligible for the MAG nomination
from the IGC"

I think that is unacceptable, I think you probably do as well.

We are not discussing who should be
> categorically excluded from participation in IGF as a whole.

that's right

>
>> Do we really want to do that Milton?
>
> If "we" means IGC,

it does.

possibly not (see comments below) If it means IGF as
> a whole, certainly not. The IGC/IGF distinction is important, of course.
>
> As I have said, I think it is relevant and legitimate to recognize a
> "potential conflict of interest" between IG agencies' staff and
> principals and the Forum's discussion of those agencies' policies and
> processes.
>
> But as a hypothetical, supposed someone from RIR staff or a regular
> consultant to a RIR participated in our discussions and showed that s/he
> was an independent, intelligent and critical thinker who recognized
> problems, was not afraid to identify and talk about problems, and was
> willing to entertain reform proposals. It is quite possible that such a
> person could, over time, generate trust among the members of IGC, and
> that s/he would be nominated to represent civil society on the MAG.


Ok, fine, if that is the criteria then IT MUST be enshrined in the
charter!! Otherwise it's not transparent or even fair.

We have had (and continue to have) RIR staff on this list, they have
even been nominated to the MAG by our NomCom before.
Was the charter changed to suddenly ban these people??? If so, I missed it.

These facts are not in dispute

1) We have a precedent, the nomcom ignored this AND invented a
precedent that is 180 degrees different than reality.

2) The decision had no consensus, in the IG world when there is no
consensus, no decision is taken (except the decision not to decide)

3) The nomcom broke rule #5

4) We are excluding a class of people for a potential conflict when
the decision makers have the exact same conflict. This is NOT (just)
about existing IG folk being excluded, it's about our broken
processes, and how a decision was made in contravention of our rules,
in the dark, with no recourse for review.  It's about how we go about
making sure this travesty never happens again.  It's about our
reputation and standing to participate in IG matters.

>
> Of course, we should be aware of organizational constraints (could this
> person be muzzled or fired by their organization if they said "the wrong
> thing?")
>

red-herring, this is nowt to do with us.

> So we may agree, there should be no simplistic, categorical exclusion of
> people from nongovernmental I* organizations, but of course we should be
> aware of potential conflicts of interest, imbalances, hidden agendas,
> and dual identities.

So, does this mean you would agree to change the wording of the nomcom
page of the charter?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Fri May 23 11:41:51 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:41:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <B1D195C2-7DCF-463C-B903-2761122C6858@psg.com>


On 23 May 2008, at 11:10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

>  The more vociferous the objectors are, presumably the more likely  
> they are to put their hands up for the next NomCom, and therefore  
> the more likely to find places on it.


of course this is true, but there are mitigations.

that is one reason for requiring at least a 5:1 ratio, i.e. 25 names  
for 5 picks.  of course it would be better to have a larger ratio, as  
the larger the ratio the smaller the chance of repetitions (other then  
for the influence of the fickle finger of random fate).  so as a  
measure to help prevent repeats in the nomcom, more people should  
volunteer for the lottery.

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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Fri May 23 11:56:14 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:56:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805230824i18b5cb7bqe2e8d8c58457b353@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>	
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>	
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>	
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>	
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	
 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>	
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <f65fb55e0805230824i18b5cb7bqe2e8d8c58457b353@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06200719c45c96b07469@[10.0.1.2]>

Much of this discussion of conflict of interest 
seems unnecessarily confusing and naïve.

I suspect that almost everyone reading this list 
has come conflicts of interest to bring to the 
table, as well as sets of views and opinions 
formed by other present and previous 
associations.  Surely the representatives of 
business and government who are on the IGF 
Advisory Group have such potential conflicts as 
they participate.  In fact, they might be rather 
useless if there were no such potential conflicts.

The idea that civil society groups, or committees 
as was the case here should be free of potential 
conflicts is both counterproductive and 
unnecessary, as well as possibly prejudicial. 
What is important in dealing with conflicts of 
interest is not to use them as an exclusionary 
device, but to declare them very publicly at 
appropriate times and, when there is a clear 
conflict with respect to choices of individuals, 
recuse oneself appropriately.

I have posted more on this topic, and on the 
topic of civil society professionals, on Veni's 
blog:

    http://blog.veni.com/?p=486#comment-141053

I support his view, as well as the comments of Suresh and McTim on this list.

George Sadowsky


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Fri May 23 11:56:24 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 21:26:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <001d01c8bced$90ede540$b2c9afc0$@net>

Ah yes, but given the "usual suspects" nature of this sector, I am sure this
rotation will be rendered moot, sooner or later.

> Also, if you don't agree with the approach taken by this year's
> NomCom, you may take comfort in the knowledge that they will most
> likely be gone when the next panel is randomly selected.  The more
> vociferous the objectors are, presumably the more likely they are to
> put their hands up for the next NomCom, and therefore the more likely
> to find places on it.  (And in the meantime, this is a timely debate
> for us to have for future NomComs' guidance.)



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 12:00:49 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 21:30:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest
In-Reply-To: <p06200719c45c96b07469@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>	 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805230824i18b5cb7bqe2e8d8c58457b353@mail.gmail.com> <p06200719c45c96b07469@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <001e01c8bcee$2d133150$873993f0$@net>

George Sadowski wrote:

> 
> Much of this discussion of conflict of interest
> seems unnecessarily confusing and naïve.
> 

Agreed 100%

The naïveté lies in this strange exclusion, based on a conflict of interest
that almost everybody here has.  Surely, every NGO here is responsible to
his exco, as RIRs are to their exco, composed of RIR members and elected ..
and anybody seeking tenure based on igov work will be answerable to whoever
is signing the checks and expecting results.
 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 23 12:00:25 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:00:25 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
	 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805230900h3601b93ehe0b1a1fd43e3bb2e@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy,

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Jeremy Malcolm
>
> Also, if you don't agree with the approach taken by this year's NomCom, you
> may take comfort in the knowledge that they will most likely be gone when
> the next panel is randomly selected.

Do you agree with the approach taken by this year' NomCom?


  The more vociferous the objectors are,
> presumably the more likely they are to put their hands up for the next
> NomCom, and therefore the more likely to find places on it.

So in order to ensure that no underhanded political machinations take
place, we have to volunteer AND be lucky enough to be chosen?

Surely I must be misunderstanding your position!


 (And in the
> meantime, this is a timely debate for us to have for future NomComs'
> guidance.)

So what is your position? Would you agree to the amendment I have suggested?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Fri May 23 12:11:40 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 12:11:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>

Hi,

On 23 May 2008, at 10:39, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> As I have said, I think it is relevant and legitimate to recognize a
> "potential conflict of interest" between IG agencies' staff and
> principals and the Forum's discussion of those agencies' policies and
> processes.
>
> But as a hypothetical, supposed someone from RIR staff or a regular
> consultant to a RIR participated in our discussions and showed that  
> s/he
> was an independent, intelligent and critical thinker who recognized
> problems, was not afraid to identify and talk about problems, and was
> willing to entertain reform proposals. It is quite possible that  
> such a
> person could, over time, generate trust among the members of IGC, and
> that s/he would be nominated to represent civil society on the MAG.

Because of my own possible conflict of interest (member of appeals  
team and periodic part time consultant to IGF secretariat with a  
partial liaison role to the community) i have stayed out of the  
specifics of this conversation but i do want pose some questions   
related to the nomcom process in general.

- Is there a difference between Nomcom taking a possible conflict of  
interest into account in making its decisions and barring people based  
on the class of employer?

- Is it essentially different to bar someone based on class of  
employer then it is to bar them on some other choice based personal  
attribute e.g. religion, educational level or way of dressing?

- Is it ok to decide against a nominee based on possible conflict of  
interest?

- Is it ok to bar someone based on class of employer (or any other  
discernible choice attribute)?

I read the chartered nomcom instructions as saying there are only two  
reasons for baring someone (rule 4);  being a member of the nomcom ,  
being a member of the appeals team. I also read the chartered nomcom  
instructions as saying that criteria to be used by the nomcom, if at  
all possible, will be made public and reviewed by the caucus before  
any decisions are made.

- could criteria such as 'we will not select any people of such and  
such a class of employer' be made public and be discussed before a  
decision is made in a 2 month process?

-  does the charter need to amended in this repsect, or do we just  
need to make sure that in the future we follow the rules that exist,  
including the one about having a non voting chair whose responsibility  
it is to make sure we follow the rules?

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  Fri May 23 12:44:07 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:44:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4836F457.3090500@bertola.eu>

Milton L Mueller ha scritto:
> Again, a necessary correction: we are not talking about what the IGF
> should do here. We are talking about who _this caucus_ should nominate
> to represent them on the MAG. 
> 
> The distinction is crucial. 
> 
> If this caucus doesn't nominate these other stakeholders they have
> plenty of other opportunities to get on the MAG. 

You are suggesting that there should actually be two caucuses, one for 
"the real civil society" and the other for "the technical civil society".

No, to be more precise you are suggesting that there already are two.

P.S. On Avri's remarks - I think it's not really relevant whether the 
NomCom can or cannot bar someone depending on their employer - if the 
NomCom members think that the employer is a deciding factor against 
someone, they will not pick that person anyway. So the question is, as a 
caucus and as officers of the caucus, "who do we think we are".
-- 
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 vb at bertola.eu  Fri May 23 12:51:51 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:51:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <4836C6EC.9060601@wzb.eu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu> <4836C6EC.9060601@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4836F627.8070900@bertola.eu>

Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
>> Thus, the apparent reluctance to any significant and formalized 
>> rotation mechanism in the membership of the IGF AG makes me think that 
> 
> Excuse me? Why did we go through all this trouble if there was no 
> rotation mechanism? It cannot have escaped you that up to a third of all 
> MAG members will be replaced later this year. Why else would you have 
> applied for joining the MAG? It just takes a while to organize the 
> rotation as it has to be coordinated with UN headquarters.

What is IMHO missing for the IGF to have a "significant and formalized 
rotation mechanism" is:

- a clear commitment to stakeholder representation (even in non-rigid 
terms, such as "not less than X and not more than Y from that 
stakeholder group" with a loose definition of each stakeholder group);

- a clear commitment to diversity under various aspects (again, even in 
non-rigid terms);

- an explicit term for each AG member, so that it is known when each 
member expires and has to apply for reappointment.

I think that anything lacking those minimal requirements is not a 
sufficiently transparent and accountable mechanism.

P.S. I would not call basic democracy requirements, such as letting 
members of the AG be replaced after 2-3-4 years, "all this trouble".
-- 
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 raul at lacnic.net  Fri May 23 13:08:06 2008
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:08:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.
 edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>


Milton et al.

Your email seems to me very frank and very important.
Several people have proposed a more formal MAG 
nomination system based in the existence of 3 clear groups of stakeholders.
The discussion about the existence of 3, 4 or 5 
stakeholders groups is, in my opinion, not very 
important while we ensure that the IGF 
Secretariat take care of the multiples 
necessaries balances in their recommendations and 
the UN Secretary General take care of the same 
things at the time of taking decisions about the 
MAG composition.  It doesn't matter if the 
academic community is a stakeholder or not if we 
are confident that there will be people from this 
community in the MAG, same happen with many other 
organizations and inteests' groups.

Your email goes directly to the key point. You 
are deffending the idea that it is impossible to 
set up formal nomination process due to the fact 
that some part of the community would not be 
represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.

It is a very valuable input for the discussion.

It is clear that the definition of a limited and 
strict number of stakeholders groups is not 
compatible with the estabishment of formal nomination processes.

Other important things is that you remark the 
fact that this caucus nominates people to 
represents striclty the caucus itself, what is 
another very frank statement that avoid any 
intention of representing a broader community than the own caucus.

It is another key issue, because it is important 
to understand that there are multiple nomination 
channels, even for the same stakeholder group, 
and nominations like the  IGC recommendations is just one of them.

It is an important step for having a common 
understanding of the way in which the integration of the MAG should be decided.


Raúl



At 11:48 a.m. 23/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> > Then, the issue is how do we create transparent processes in the IGF
>AG
> > so that issues cannot be foreclosed by certain stakeholders. But these
> > processes should be fair and equal to all stakeholders, not directed
> > against some of them specifically.
>
>Again, a necessary correction: we are not talking about what the IGF
>should do here. We are talking about who _this caucus_ should nominate
>to represent them on the MAG.
>
>The distinction is crucial.
>
>If this caucus doesn't nominate these other stakeholders they have
>plenty of other opportunities to get on the MAG.
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1462 
>- Release Date: 23/05/2008 07:20 a.m.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri May 23 13:20:18 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:20:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <4836F627.8070900@bertola.eu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu> <4836C6EC.9060601@wzb.eu> <4836F627.8070900@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <4836FCD2.60805@wzb.eu>



Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
>>> Thus, the apparent reluctance to any significant and formalized 
>>> rotation mechanism in the membership of the IGF AG makes me think that 
>>
>> Excuse me? Why did we go through all this trouble if there was no 
>> rotation mechanism? It cannot have escaped you that up to a third of 
>> all MAG members will be replaced later this year. Why else would you 
>> have applied for joining the MAG? It just takes a while to organize 
>> the rotation as it has to be coordinated with UN headquarters.
> 
> What is IMHO missing for the IGF to have a "significant and formalized 
> rotation mechanism" is:

It will pretty likely come to that should the IGF live beyond its 5 
years life span as defined in the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> - a clear commitment to stakeholder representation (even in non-rigid 
> terms, such as "not less than X and not more than Y from that 
> stakeholder group" with a loose definition of each stakeholder group);

We have discussed all that, also on this list. This is less easy to do 
than it sounds. We couldn't even agree on this list how many groups or 
categories of stakeholders we would need to fairly represent the 
Internet world.
> 
> - a clear commitment to diversity under various aspects (again, even in 
> non-rigid terms);

Again, this sounds nice but I don't imagine that there would ever be 
consensus on what diversity under various aspects exactly means.
> 
> - an explicit term for each AG member, so that it is known when each 
> member expires and has to apply for reappointment.

In the long term, yes! Within a 5 year timeframe perhaps not the most 
urgent item on the agenda.
> 
> I think that anything lacking those minimal requirements is not a 
> sufficiently transparent and accountable mechanism.
> 
> P.S. I would not call basic democracy requirements, such as letting 
> members of the AG be replaced after 2-3-4 years, "all this trouble".

All this trouble referred to the fuss we made about the nomcom on this 
list, not to the requirement as such. I apologize for my loose wording.
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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri May 23 13:23:18 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:23:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
Message-ID: <s836c56f.095@gwia203.syr.edu>

I support Avri that the main thing is to ensure the few rules, revised
or not, are followed to the best abilities of this all-volunteer caucus.
 For this year it's by now a UN and not caucus decision right.   

Lee





Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> vb at bertola.eu 05/23/08 12:44 PM >>>
Milton L Mueller ha scritto:
> Again, a necessary correction: we are not talking about what the IGF
> should do here. We are talking about who _this caucus_ should nominate
> to represent them on the MAG. 
> 
> The distinction is crucial. 
> 
> If this caucus doesn't nominate these other stakeholders they have
> plenty of other opportunities to get on the MAG. 

You are suggesting that there should actually be two caucuses, one for 
"the real civil society" and the other for "the technical civil
society".

No, to be more precise you are suggesting that there already are two.

P.S. On Avri's remarks - I think it's not really relevant whether the 
NomCom can or cannot bar someone depending on their employer - if the 
NomCom members think that the employer is a deciding factor against 
someone, they will not pick that person anyway. So the question is, as a

caucus and as officers of the caucus, "who do we think we are".
-- 
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 mueller at syr.edu  Fri May 23 15:59:43 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:59:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest
In-Reply-To: <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Well-framed questions, Avri. My answers below:

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> - Is there a difference between Nomcom taking a possible conflict of
> interest into account in making its decisions and barring people based
> on the class of employer?

Yes, there's a major difference. A conflict of interest is a far more
individualized criterion and cannot be simply mapped onto class of
employer (although there may be a more than casual correlation). 

> - Is it essentially different to bar someone based on class of
> employer then it is to bar them on some other choice based personal
> attribute e.g. religion, educational level or way of dressing?

Yes, there is a huge difference. If the actual employer (no one has
proposed using a general class of employer) has a material interest in
policy or regulation, there is a logical connection between the decision
not to nominate and the person's employment. To say that we as IGC would
rather not nominate a staff member from ITU, the NTIA or Robert Mugabe's
cabinet to represent us on issues related to critical internet resources
is not at all like saying that we won't nominate Avri because we don't
like the way she dresses.

> - Is it ok to decide against a nominee based on possible conflict of
> interest?

Yes, of course. 

> I read the chartered nomcom instructions as saying there are only two
> reasons for baring someone (rule 4);  being a member of the nomcom ,
> being a member of the appeals team. I also read the chartered nomcom
> instructions as saying that criteria to be used by the nomcom, if at
> all possible, will be made public and reviewed by the caucus before
> any decisions are made.

A Nomcom has the ability to decide who it is in the best interest of the
caucus to nominate. I am, as you all know, not a fan of the Nominating
committee method. But once you accept the fact that a randomly selected
group deliberates in private about who to select, and once they make
their criteria clear and there is nothing unreasonable or manifestly
unfair about them, that is the end of the matter. 

No one can argue that it is inherently unreasonable or unfair to take
into consideration a possible conflict of interest among people whose
position on issues might be controlled by or unduly influenced by
organizations with governance authority. 

> - could criteria such as 'we will not select any people of such and
> such a class of employer' be made public and be discussed before a
> decision is made in a 2 month process?

No, it couldn't. But again, this is a hypothetical question of little or
no relevance to the current debate. No one was excluded because of a
"class of employer" per se. Rather, there was a quite reasonable - and
thus far unrefuted - recognition that certain employers create
"potential" conflicts of interest which should be taken into
consideration.

> -  does the charter need to amended in this repsect, or do we just
> need to make sure that in the future we follow the rules that exist,
> including the one about having a non voting chair whose responsibility
> it is to make sure we follow the rules?

Since no rules were broken and no problems were identified with the
results, I see no need to amend the rules. 

Those complaining now seem to suggest we should amend the rules to get
rid of the Nomcom model. But if we adopt voting, they will be just as
dissatisfied, because they will lose the votes, too. 

--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 wcurrie at apc.org  Fri May 23 17:05:14 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 21:05:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
Message-ID: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

It seems a commonplace that people on the MAG nominated by the internet technical community will have its interests at heart. The problem is in the point Milton makes that some seem to be carrying a mandate to foreclose policy dialogue on topics they find uncomfortable to their principals. This is damaging to the IGF as a space for open policy dialogue and to the spirit of multi-stakeholder participation.. 

Similarly the crude, broad brush stroke attacks on civil society participation in IG that Veni makes are unfortunate because they also reflect badly on the organisations like ICANN and ISOC that Veni purports to speak for. I personally find Veni's remarks deeply offensive as he no doubt intends them to be. And when they are backed up by some members of this caucus who carry a flag for ICANN, then the remarks begin to be part of ICANN's negative PR machine - like political candidates putting out negative attack ads in US election campaigns.. 

If I were in charge of ICANN or ISOC's public relations department, I would have a serious concern about these two issues: that representatives of the internet technical community on the MAG are perceived to be gatekeepers in their own interest to the detriment of the IGF mandate on open policy dialogue  and that someone like Veni is operating a 'swift boat' campaign apparently with the support of senior individuals in the internet technical community.

Willie

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri May 23 16:10:48 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:10:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> - Is it ok to bar someone based on class of employer (or any other
> discernible choice attribute)?
> 

Neither Nomcom nor IGC have any ability to "bar" anyone from anything. 

We are talking about who we want to put forward as _our_ representatives
and spokespersons on the IG Forum Advisory Group. 

This debate is only partially about conflicts of interest; more
fundamentally, it's all about WHO WE TRUST to represent us. 

So, a note to Sadowsky, McTim and Suresh: you need to accept the fact
that a significant number of people on this list do not fully trust a
staff member or director of an RIR or ICANN to represent civil society
on the AG. You might think about why that is true.**

Another fact: You are not going to change this situation by whining
about the unfairness of the Nomcom or creating a big fight about its
decision criteria. There are better ways to address that problem. You
are intelligent enough to figure out what they are. 

--MM




**Hint: why did it take 2 years to get critical internet resources on
the IGF agenda, and why did certain groups fight so hard to keep people
like me off the plenary panel? 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 16:12:48 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:12:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <4836F627.8070900@bertola.eu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <48368361.8000908@bertola.eu> <4836C6EC.9060601@wzb.eu> <4836F627.8070900@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> 
> - a clear commitment to diversity under various aspects (again, even
in
> non-rigid terms);

OK with me

> - an explicit term for each AG member, so that it is known when each
> member expires and has to apply for reappointment.

I strongly support this, too. 

Both would require amendments. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 16:41:28 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:41:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> 
> Your email goes directly to the key point. You
> are deffending the idea that it is impossible to
> set up formal nomination process due to the fact
> that some part of the community would not be
> represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.

That was not the exact point I was making, but it is one worth making. A
discussion of that point would be more productive than an attack on the
Nomcom report. 

> Other important things is that you remark the
> fact that this caucus nominates people to
> represent strictly the caucus itself, what is
> another very frank statement that avoid any
> intention of representing a broader community than the own caucus.

Yes, that was indeed my main point. Our nominations reflect IGC
preferences. We lack the institutional capacity to claim that those
preferences represent the whole of "civil society" on a global scale.
But at least we are an open, CS caucus. Just like the RIRs claim to
represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
processes. 

<this section moved>

> The discussion about the existence of 3, 4 or 5
> stakeholders groups is, in my opinion, not very
> important while we ensure that the IGF
> Secretariat take care of the multiples
> necessaries balances in their recommendations and
> the UN Secretary General take care of the same
> things at the time of taking decisions about the
> MAG composition.

I myself would prefer to have a truly bottom-up representational
process, rather than a top-down process in which people lobby the
Secretariat and UN S-G to make sure they are represented. It seems to me
that the lobbying process would only favor stronger economic vested
interests. 

>  It doesn't matter if the
> academic community is a stakeholder or not if we
> are confident that there will be people from this
> community in the MAG, same happen with many other
> organizations and inteests' groups.

True, but how can I be confident that the representative of "academia"
chosen by a remote Secretariat or SG will represent academics who are
engaged and informed about internet governance? One can find academics
on any side of a policy issue. It would not make me happy, e.g., to put
Professor John Yoo on the MAG.** How can an "academic" be held
accountable if his or her appointment came from the top and not from
cultivating political support on the bottom? Isn't it possible that
powerful interest groups would lobby the UN SG and others to put their
pet academics on and to exclude more critical ones?

> It is another key issue, because it is important
> to understand that there are multiple nomination
> channels, even for the same stakeholder group,
> and nominations like the  IGC recommendations is just one of them.

Yes, so we seem to agree on the fact that IGC nominations are of limited
impact and that there are at the moment many other channels. And for the
time being, that is fine.

But we do not agree on the more fundamental point: I would not be
satisfied with relying on the discretion of the UN SG or Secretariat
over the longer term. I would prefer to see a real bottom up
representational structure set up. 

And perhaps we both agree that the composition of the MAG is not all
that important, as long as it is balanced. 

Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of goals
and plans. 

I think the MAG has become a target for an increasingly unhealthy bunch
of political fights. Maybe we can just get rid of it altogether. 


** John Yoo is the UC Berkeley law professor who wrote the infamous
"torture memo" for President Bush 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 17:06:21 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:06:21 +0300
Subject: [governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805231406o141be83ew108a907cd7715f30@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

You seem to have misinterpreted a few things, let me elaborate, but
rest assured this'll be my last post for today (except for a rebuttal
to willie, maybe), as I am off to bed soon:

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Well-framed questions, Avri. My answers below:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> - Is there a difference between Nomcom taking a possible conflict of
>> interest into account in making its decisions and barring people based
>> on the class of employer?
>
> Yes, there's a major difference. A conflict of interest is a far more
> individualized criterion and cannot be simply mapped onto class of
> employer (although there may be a more than casual correlation).
>
>> - Is it essentially different to bar someone based on class of
>> employer then it is to bar them on some other choice based personal
>> attribute e.g. religion, educational level or way of dressing?
>
> Yes, there is a huge difference. If the actual employer (no one has
> proposed using a general class of employer)

well, since the NomCom report says "Internet governance
organizations", without defining that list, it could be hundreds of
organizations, and many thousands of people. I'd say that's pretty
"general", but if you think it's a "specific class", then this caucus
needs to elaborate a specific list of these organisations.

has a material interest in
> policy or regulation, there is a logical connection between the decision
> not to nominate and the person's employment. To say that we as IGC would
> rather not nominate a staff member from ITU, the NTIA or Robert Mugabe's
> cabinet to represent us on issues related to critical internet resources
> is not at all like saying that we won't nominate Avri because we don't
> like the way she dresses.

The charter says, in part:

"Membership

The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity,
who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and
have the same rights and duties."

Now, the Nomcom seems to have decided that all members are NOT equal,
as those who work for an undefined group of organisations are
ineligible for our MAG nomination.

>
>> - Is it ok to decide against a nominee based on possible conflict of
>> interest?
>
> Yes, of course.
>
>> I read the chartered nomcom instructions as saying there are only two
>> reasons for baring someone (rule 4);  being a member of the nomcom ,
>> being a member of the appeals team. I also read the chartered nomcom
>> instructions as saying that criteria to be used by the nomcom, if at
>> all possible, will be made public and reviewed by the caucus before
>> any decisions are made.
>
> A Nomcom has the ability to decide who it is in the best interest of the
> caucus to nominate. I am, as you all know, not a fan of the Nominating
> committee method. But once you accept the fact that a randomly selected
> group deliberates in private about who to select, and once they make
> their criteria clear

which they didn't, in this case, (as required by rule #5).

>and there is nothing unreasonable or manifestly unfair about them,

well this criteria seems both unreasonable and unfair.  Exclusion
based on employment in an undefined group? What's reasonable or fair
about that?  How is one to know which employers fall under this
category?

>that is the end of the matter.

It's the end of the matter as far as results of the NomCom go, (as
there is no appeal possible).

> No one can argue that it is inherently unreasonable or unfair to take
> into consideration a possible conflict of interest among people whose
> position on issues might be controlled by or unduly influenced by
> organizations with governance authority.

I don't see anyone arguing that, what I am arguing is that we all have
the same or similar (perhaps even greater) potential conflicts of
interest, as George, VB, Suresh, I and others have noted.  It's the
height of hypocrisy to say "we are all equal (except when it comes to
nominations for the MAG, then some are less equal than others)"


>
>> - could criteria such as 'we will not select any people of such and
>> such a class of employer' be made public and be discussed before a
>> decision is made in a 2 month process?
>
> No, it couldn't.

Why not?? Rule #5 seems to say that it should be made public/discussed
by the caucus!

But again, this is a hypothetical question of little or
> no relevance to the current debate. No one was excluded because of a
> "class of employer" per se.

The question is central to the current debate, to wit, do we change
the charter to eliminate this specific act of misfeasance, or do we
just hope for the best next time?  If the nomcom didn't follow rule #5
this time, what makes anyone think the next Com will do better?

Rather, there was a quite reasonable - and
> thus far unrefuted - recognition that certain employers create
> "potential" conflicts of interest which should be taken into
> consideration.

Did you miss George's post on the list?

"The idea that civil society groups, or committees as was the case
here should be free of potential conflicts is both counterproductive
and unnecessary, as well as possibly prejudicial. What is important in
dealing with conflicts of interest is not to use them as an
exclusionary device, but to declare them very publicly at appropriate
times and, when there is a clear conflict with respect to choices of
individuals, recuse oneself appropriately."

We all have potential conflicts of interest, singling out a class of
employers is discrimination, pure and simple.

>
>> -  does the charter need to amended in this repsect, or do we just
>> need to make sure that in the future we follow the rules that exist,
>> including the one about having a non voting chair whose responsibility
>> it is to make sure we follow the rules?
>
> Since no rules were broken

Since it's not against the rules to make up a precedent that is
factually the opposite of what is true, well, you are correct (oh,
wait, except for that pesky rule #5, of course).


and no problems were identified with the
> results, I see no need to amend the rules.
>
> Those complaining now seem to suggest we should amend the rules to get
> rid of the Nomcom model.

Another red-herring? No one has suggested this, as you very well know.
 "Really, the level of discourse on this list is just getting silly."
Really.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 23 17:35:01 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:35:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805231435s31cb3c70rc17bf971fe5d6c00@mail.gmail.com>

Willie,

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:05 AM,  <wcurrie at apc.org> wrote:
> It seems a commonplace that people on the MAG nominated by the internet technical community will have its interests at heart.

Just what are those interests, pray tell?

>The problem is in the point Milton makes that some seem to be carrying a mandate to foreclose policy dialogue on topics they find uncomfortable to their principals.

Just as Milton and Jeannette seem to be trying to foreclose dialogue
on the injustice we are discussing today?  ;-) Seriously tho, what
policy dialogues are being foreclosed by reps of the internet
technical community on the MAG at the moment?  This is the first I
have heard of this in about a year (or is that what you are talking
about, old news?)


This is damaging to the IGF as a space for open policy dialogue and to
the spirit of multi-stakeholder participation..
>
> Similarly the crude, broad brush stroke attacks on civil society participation in IG that Veni makes are unfortunate because they also reflect badly on the organisations like ICANN and ISOC that Veni purports to speak for.

I, for one, see him only speaking for himself.

> I personally find Veni's remarks deeply offensive as he no doubt intends them to be. And when they are backed up by some members of this caucus who carry a flag for ICANN

Are you referring to me?  The only flag I carry has a giant BUTOC on it! :-)


>then the remarks begin to be part of ICANN's negative PR machine - like political candidates putting out negative attack ads in US election campaigns..
>

For the record, the only contact I have with ICANN folk is personal,
as in "I saw you dozing of on the webcast" or "I hear so and so is
pregnant again".  Oh, I also tell them when their mail software is
spamming me, but I have never talked to any ICANN staff about IGC
issues.  My views are my own, are deeply held, and have nothing to do
with political posturing or PR.  I'm fighting my own corner here
Willie, no one else's.


> If I were in charge of ICANN or ISOC's public relations department, I would have a serious concern about these two issues: that representatives of the internet technical community on the MAG are perceived to be gatekeepers in their own interest to the detriment of the IGF mandate on open policy dialogue  and that someone like Veni is operating a 'swift boat' campaign apparently with the support of senior individuals in the internet technical community.

It's not apparent to me, but what is apparent is that Veni is at least
correct when he says "the IG-CSP exist, and there is nothing wrong
with that. It will be wrong, if we do not recognize this fact, or try
to avoid it."

I hope this is not offensive to you, I'm only pointing out that it is
becoming a specialised field of knowledge.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From karl at cavebear.com  Fri May 23 17:43:11 2008
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:43:11 -0700
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <48373A6F.3050102@cavebear.com>

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
>>
>> Your email goes directly to the key point. You
>> are deffending the idea that it is impossible to
>> set up formal nomination process due to the fact
>> that some part of the community would not be
>> represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.
> 
> That was not the exact point I was making, but it is one worth making. A
> discussion of that point would be more productive than an attack on the
> Nomcom report. 

It has long concerned me how we have quietly accepted the highly 
anti-democratic and paternalistic notion that people can be carved into 
pre-defined groups on the basis of a single trait (like ownership of a 
small business or a university degree in a technical or scientific 
discipline) and then assert that every member of those groups shares a 
common interest in all things.  That's why I consider "stakeholder" to 
be a septic conception.

(I have also been long concerned how we similarly classify legal 
fictions, such as corporations, into similar categories rather than 
recognizing the plurality of interests of the actual people behind those 
fictions.  But that's a matter for thread different than this one.)

Each individual person is a cauldron of conflicting interests.  That's 
just the way the world is.  (Legal fictions tend to have fewer intrinsic 
conflicts which is one reason, among many, why legal-fiction aggregates 
have obtained so much power in the present world.)

The cure for this is to recognize that conflicts exist and build 
compensating measures into the system.

For instance, we can't expect every one who is a candidate for a 
position to reveal all of his/her conflicts or, once selected, to 
carefully measure, constrain, and reveal the affects of those conflicts 
on decisions being made.

One partially curative measure would be to build into the system a way 
for everyone else to perceive the effects of those conflicts and, if the 
general perception is that the given person is doing a poor job of 
handling them, to remove that person from the position either 
immediately or at some periodic event.

That was just an example of one possible mechanism - other, additional 
mechanisms could (and should) be created to further limit the effects of 
self-interested decisions.

		--karl--



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at malcolm.id.au  Fri May 23 20:16:11 2008
From: Jeremy at malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 08:16:11 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805230900h3601b93ehe0b1a1fd43e3bb2e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805230900h3601b93ehe0b1a1fd43e3bb2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BA424070-5A5D-4B5F-8671-CB5B2A8B7F76@malcolm.id.au>

On 24/05/2008, at 12:00 AM, McTim wrote:

> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Jeremy Malcolm
>>
>> Also, if you don't agree with the approach taken by this year's  
>> NomCom, you
>> may take comfort in the knowledge that they will most likely be  
>> gone when
>> the next panel is randomly selected.
>
> Do you agree with the approach taken by this year' NomCom?

Actually I take an intermediate position.  The question of conflict of  
interest of nominees employed by existing internet governance  
institutions just reflects our broader disagreement over whether those  
institutions form part of civil society or not.  On that point, my  
view is that they often don't in toto, but that segments of them may;  
for example, ICANN as a whole cannot claim to be a civil society  
organisation, but the GNSO's NCUC can (whereas the GNSO's IP  
constituency is firmly part of the private sector and the ccNSO the  
government sector).

If that is the case, then there is no canonical answer as to whether  
close involvement with an Internet governance institution should  
exclude one from being nominated as a civil society representative,  
but it is a factor to be considered.  If there can be no reasonable  
apprehension of bias arising from a candidate's connection to an  
Internet governance institution, then the NomCom should remain able to  
nominate that person.  So in answer to your original question I  
disagree that it should be an automatic disqualifier but I do see it  
as a relevant consideration.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Fri May 23 21:55:23 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:55:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <BA424070-5A5D-4B5F-8671-CB5B2A8B7F76@malcolm.id.au>
References: <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0EB66E59-259B-4201-9B66-87C460EB527E@malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805230900h3601b93ehe0b1a1fd43e3bb2e@mail.gmail.com> <BA424070-5A5D-4B5F-8671-CB5B2A8B7F76@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <20080524015523.GA17858@hserus.net>

Jeremy Malcolm [24/05/08 08:16 +0800]:
> interest of nominees employed by existing internet governance  
> institutions just reflects our broader disagreement over whether those  
> institutions form part of civil society or not.  On that point, my view 

Jeremy, unless you / this caucus can set yourselves up as representing all
of CS, that decision is, with respect, not yours to make.

> So in answer to your original question I disagree that it should be an 
> automatic disqualifier but I do see it as a relevant consideration.

If you base the decision on a person rather than an organization, as you
seem to imply, then that would be fairer.

However, this classification based on organization introduces an
unacceptable amount of bias into the process. Besides alienating people
from those organizations.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 21:59:53 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:59:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080524015953.GB17858@hserus.net>

Milton L Mueller [23/05/08 16:10 -0400]:
>This debate is only partially about conflicts of interest; more
>fundamentally, it's all about WHO WE TRUST to represent us. 

Who are "we"?  So far I have seen you and Parminder, and maybe a couple of
others (Tayob and such) in agreement. And I have seen various other people
on the list entirely not in agreement in this.

>So, a note to Sadowsky, McTim and Suresh: you need to accept the fact
>that a significant number of people on this list do not fully trust a
>staff member or director of an RIR or ICANN to represent civil society
>on the AG. You might think about why that is true.**

That certainly doesnt give you consensus of any sort.  And as I said to
Jeremy, you cant even claim to represent all of CS on this list. 

>Another fact: You are not going to change this situation by whining
>about the unfairness of the Nomcom or creating a big fight about its
>decision criteria. There are better ways to address that problem. You
>are intelligent enough to figure out what they are. 

Well yes, you can submit all these and then have several of your
nominations thrown out, I guess.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 22:08:53 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:08:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net>

wcurrie at apc.org [23/05/08 21:05 +0000]:
> doubt intends them to be. And when they are backed up by some members of
> this caucus who carry a flag for ICANN, then the remarks begin to be part
> of ICANN's negative PR machine - like political candidates putting out

Willie, whoever gave you the idea that I, for example, or maybe McTim, are
carrying flags for ICANN?  Or that this is all part of an elaborate swift
boat operation?  Not that "the other side" (aka the liberal all the way to
radical liberal left, like moveon.org) have clean hands on that sort of
thing, but I digress..

Please dont insult your intelligence, and ours, by mistaking deep
frustration with this process, and with its being virtually hijacked, with
a swift boat campaign.  He seems to be in the position of the prophet
Jeremiah here, making these dire predictions that you're not getting the
meaning of.

If you have read previous posts on his blog, you would know that this is in
no way different from the views he normally holds, and frankly expresses.

>If I were in charge of ICANN or ISOC's public relations department, I
>would have a serious concern about these two issues: that representatives
>of the internet technical community on the MAG are perceived to be
>gatekeepers in their own interest to the detriment of the IGF mandate on
>open policy dialogue  and that someone like Veni is operating a 'swift
>boat' campaign apparently with the support of senior individuals in the
>internet technical community.

And if I were in charge of ICANN or ISOC's PR (and I know enough people
from the technical community who have previously served in senior roles in
ISOC), I would react with shock to see that what is ALSO a bitter criticism
of icann is being interpreted as a swiftboating campaign somehow engineered
by ICANN/ISOC PR

Oh, and I applaud Veni here.

	suresh
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Fri May 23 22:11:13 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:11:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <20080524021113.GD17858@hserus.net>

wcurrie at apc.org [23/05/08 21:05 +0000]:
>policy dialogue on topics they find uncomfortable to their principals. This
>is damaging to the IGF as a space for open policy dialogue and to the
>spirit of multi-stakeholder participation.. 

And Willie, I never knew that "open policy" and "multi stakeholderism"
meant the sort of my way or the highway exclusion of people or groups that
dont subscribe to a narrowly defined and minority set of opinions, that I
keep seeing here on this group.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 23:13:51 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 23:13:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

I'm interested in hearing more about how you all react to these points
of mine:

> -----Original Message-----
> Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
> and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of
goals
> and plans.
> 
> I think the MAG has become a target for an increasingly unhealthy
bunch
> of political fights. Maybe we can just get rid of it altogether.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 23:35:18 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:05:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <000301c8bd4f$3182c960$94885c20$@net>

> > I think the MAG has become a target for an increasingly unhealthy
> bunch
> > of political fights. Maybe we can just get rid of it altogether.

No, no no.. simply get rid of the politicians, the IG CS pros, the [long
list of people]

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 00:31:41 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 07:31:41 +0300
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805232131p49c109ccs40bde2ebadf2b393@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> - Is it ok to bar someone based on class of employer (or any other
>> discernible choice attribute)?
>>
>
> Neither Nomcom nor IGC have any ability to "bar" anyone from anything.
>
> We are talking about who we want to put forward as _our_ representatives
> and spokespersons on the IG Forum Advisory Group.
>
> This debate is only partially about conflicts of interest; more
> fundamentally, it's all about WHO WE TRUST to represent us.

It's about discrimination, about exclusion a priori, with no
definition of who is possibly excluded.

>
> So, a note to Sadowsky, McTim and Suresh: you need to accept the fact
> that a significant number of people on this list do not fully trust a
> staff member or director of an RIR or ICANN to represent civil society
> on the AG.

But we have, in the past, nominated just such a person to the MAG.
Milton, I have pointed this out several times in the last few days.  I
would be deeply disappointed to find you didn't read every word of my
emails.  Perhaps you have just forgotten this fact.

You might think about why that is true.**
>
> Another fact: You are not going to change this situation by whining
> about the unfairness of the Nomcom or creating a big fight about its
> decision criteria.

I want to make sure such a rank injustice doesn't happen again, adding
one sentence to the nomcom bit of the charter seems easier than trying
to persuade people that their paranoia is unjustified.  It's a wrong
that i want to see righted, AFAIK, that's a  CS attribute.

There are better ways to address that problem. You
> are intelligent enough to figure out what they are.

I'm not, really.  When I see people breaking rules, ignoring (and even
creating falsehoods about) our precedents, I tend to think that making
the rules even more clear is a good solution.  What else do you
suggest?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Sat May 24 01:06:51 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 13:06:51 +0800
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>

On 24/05/2008, at 11:13 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I'm interested in hearing more about how you all react to these points
> of mine:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
>> and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of  
>> goals
>> and plans.
>>
>> I think the MAG has become a target for an increasingly unhealthy  
>> bunch
>> of political fights. Maybe we can just get rid of it altogether.


No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative  
Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the  
Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to  
embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.

It is also easier for the Secretariat to palm off the recommendations  
of the open consultations to the Secretary-General (a fiction, of  
course) so that it can disclaim responsibility for the dismissal of  
those recommendations.  Harder for it to ignore a clear resolution of  
the Advisory Group, whose numbers and constituencies are known and  
fixed.  (Still not impossible, though; case in point, the Chairman  
shutting down discussion within the Advisory Group of any variation to  
the 50% representation of governments.)

For all its manifest faults, at least the Advisory Group, now that it  
has increased its transparency thorough reports of its meetings and  
mailing list summaries, is somewhat more accountable than the  
Secretariat alone.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 24 01:14:32 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 10:44:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <004501c8bd5d$0e31c4d0$2a954e70$@net>

> No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
> Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
> Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
> embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.

Right then. And how different is that from a section of this caucus (in
other words, a splinter group of a small splinter group of CS at large)
shunning employees of RIR / IG groups?

	srs

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat May 24 01:20:37 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 08:20:37 +0300
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <004501c8bd5d$0e31c4d0$2a954e70$@net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <004501c8bd5d$0e31c4d0$2a954e70$@net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805232220x56bfc6fcp4023268dd707efa2@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
>> Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
>> Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
>> embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.
>
> Right then. And how different is that from a section of this caucus (in
> other words, a splinter group of a small splinter group of CS at large)
> shunning employees of RIR / IG groups?

Thank you Suresh, for focusing us back on topic, which is, how do we
prevent this from happening again (aside from hoping that future
noncoms act fairly).  Do you support my proposed change to the
charter?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 24 01:22:41 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 10:52:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805232220x56bfc6fcp4023268dd707efa2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>	 <004501c8bd5d$0e31c4d0$2a954e70$@net> <f65fb55e0805232220x56bfc6fcp4023268dd707efa2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005201c8bd5e$31e4c1b0$95ae4510$@net>

> Thank you Suresh, for focusing us back on topic, which is, how do we
> prevent this from happening again (aside from hoping that future
> noncoms act fairly).  Do you support my proposed change to the
> charter?

Yes. I support 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat May 24 03:27:07 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:27:07 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48373A6F.3050102@cavebear.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DC2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Karl:
The cure for this is to recognize that conflicts exist and build compensating measures into the system.

Wolfgang:
Wise words, Karl. We should base our discussion on this assumption. Contradictions and conflicts are driving forces for development. Don´´t be afraid as long as the background is transparent and we can discuss it openl. and without an aggressive undertone. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 23 17:05:14 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 21:05:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
Message-ID: <1611464208-1211616662-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1544718535-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

It seems a commonplace that people on the MAG nominated by the internet technical community will have its interests at heart. The problem is in the point Milton makes that some seem to be carrying a mandate to foreclose policy dialogue on topics they find uncomfortable to their principals. This is damaging to the IGF as a space for open policy dialogue and to the spirit of multi-stakeholder participation.. 

Similarly the crude, broad brush stroke attacks on civil society participation in IG that Veni makes are unfortunate because they also reflect badly on the organisations like ICANN and ISOC that Veni purports to speak for. I personally find Veni's remarks deeply offensive as he no doubt intends them to be. And when they are backed up by some members of this caucus who carry a flag for ICANN, then the remarks begin to be part of ICANN's negative PR machine - like political candidates putting out negative attack ads in US election campaigns.. 

If I were in charge of ICANN or ISOC's public relations department, I would have a serious concern about these two issues: that representatives of the internet technical community on the MAG are perceived to be gatekeepers in their own interest to the detriment of the IGF mandate on open policy dialogue  and that someone like Veni is operating a 'swift boat' campaign apparently with the support of senior individuals in the internet technical community.

Willie

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Sat May 24 08:31:34 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 08:31:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net>
References:  <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986
 -@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <p06200724c45db5c993e3@[10.0.1.2]>

Suresh,

Perhaps Willie is talking about me when he talks about people who 
carry the flag for ICANN.

I carry a flag for ICANN when and only when I believe that it is 
acting in the best interests of the Internet as a whole.  I did the 
same thing for years when I was deeply involved in the Internet 
Society.

My goal is to support those organizations that I believe are working 
for an Internet that is increasingly accessible, affordable and 
available so that everyone can benefit from the multitude of benefits 
that it can provide.  God knows the world is sufficiently screwed up 
that we need all the help we can get.  (I am fully conscious that my 
country, the United States, bears its share of the blame for this  -- 
led, BTW, by a president who does engage in crude and useless rigid 
characterizations of people and of countries.)

I think that "civil society" representation on the IGF Advisory Group 
and within ICANN has a mixed record with respect to that objective. 
What I have observed in the past that I think is counterproductive is 
a relatively uncompromising defense of particularly U.S. liberal 
norms that comes into conflict with progress on making the Internet 
grow and be useful.  I'm not against the liberal norms, and I count 
myself as a liberal, but there is a real issue of how one makes 
progress in a multi-cultural space and to what extent one should look 
for progress vs. ideological purity.  BTW, this is not to say that 
"civil society" has not contributed positively to those discussions 
also.

In Jeremy's discussion of whether ICANN is civil society or not, I 
think the question is not meaningful.  If one is to make it 
meaningful, one needs a non-trivial and relatively precise definition 
of "civil society" that can be agreed upon.  I suspect that may not 
be possible.  If it were possible, then one could discuss what 
representation of "civil society" means, and under what terms it is 
granted, accepted, and/or acknowledged.  Is this a challenge for this 
group: Define civil Society.

I really like Karl's characterization of the relative uselessness of 
classification of people by certain of their characteristics.  We all 
have multiple dimensions of conflicts, yet somehow in real life most 
of us manage to reach an accommodation with ourselves and others most 
of the time.  Rigid classifications are generally non-productive at 
best and highly destructive at worst.

Milton, I am not surprised by your lack of trust of certain people in 
the I* space, but I respectfully suggest that part of this may be 
your problem, not theirs.  Perhaps you could relate specific examples 
in some detail of where you believe that your trust has been betrayed 
and violated in a very fundamental and direct manner   ---   as 
opposed to situations in which a legitimate compromise of objectives 
was made.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 7:08 PM -0700 5/23/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>wcurrie at apc.org [23/05/08 21:05 +0000]:
>>doubt intends them to be. And when they are backed up by some members of
>>this caucus who carry a flag for ICANN, then the remarks begin to be part
>>of ICANN's negative PR machine - like political candidates putting out
>
>Willie, whoever gave you the idea that I, for example, or maybe McTim, are
>carrying flags for ICANN?  Or that this is all part of an elaborate swift
>boat operation?  Not that "the other side" (aka the liberal all the way to
>radical liberal left, like moveon.org) have clean hands on that sort of
>thing, but I digress..
>
>Please dont insult your intelligence, and ours, by mistaking deep
>frustration with this process, and with its being virtually hijacked, with
>a swift boat campaign.  He seems to be in the position of the prophet
>Jeremiah here, making these dire predictions that you're not getting the
>meaning of.
>
>If you have read previous posts on his blog, you would know that this is in
>no way different from the views he normally holds, and frankly expresses.
>
>>If I were in charge of ICANN or ISOC's public relations department, I
>>would have a serious concern about these two issues: that representatives
>>of the internet technical community on the MAG are perceived to be
>>gatekeepers in their own interest to the detriment of the IGF mandate on
>>open policy dialogue  and that someone like Veni is operating a 'swift
>>boat' campaign apparently with the support of senior individuals in the
>>internet technical community.
>
>And if I were in charge of ICANN or ISOC's PR (and I know enough people
>from the technical community who have previously served in senior roles in
>ISOC), I would react with shock to see that what is ALSO a bitter criticism
>of icann is being interpreted as a swiftboating campaign somehow engineered
>by ICANN/ISOC PR
>
>Oh, and I applaud Veni here.
>
>	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 ca at rits.org.br  Sat May 24 10:03:02 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 11:03:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>

Milton, you put the finger right in the wound (in Brazilian portuguese: 
"por o dedo na ferida").

Good, and let's move on.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> - Is it ok to bar someone based on class of employer (or any other
>> discernible choice attribute)?
>>
> 
> Neither Nomcom nor IGC have any ability to "bar" anyone from anything. 
> 
> We are talking about who we want to put forward as _our_ representatives
> and spokespersons on the IG Forum Advisory Group. 
> 
> This debate is only partially about conflicts of interest; more
> fundamentally, it's all about WHO WE TRUST to represent us. 
> 
> So, a note to Sadowsky, McTim and Suresh: you need to accept the fact
> that a significant number of people on this list do not fully trust a
> staff member or director of an RIR or ICANN to represent civil society
> on the AG. You might think about why that is true.**
> 
> Another fact: You are not going to change this situation by whining
> about the unfairness of the Nomcom or creating a big fight about its
> decision criteria. There are better ways to address that problem. You
> are intelligent enough to figure out what they are. 
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **Hint: why did it take 2 years to get critical internet resources on
> the IGF agenda, and why did certain groups fight so hard to keep people
> like me off the plenary panel? 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 10:34:23 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 17:34:23 +0300
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>

Carlos,

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> Milton, you put the finger right in the wound (in Brazilian portuguese: "por
> o dedo na ferida").

Would you be happy if any of the staff from any of these orgs;

Registro.br
PTTMetro
CERT.br
CETIC.br

 were on this list, wanted to be nominated to the MAG, but couldn't
because of who their employer is?  I suspect you would be very unhappy
indeed, judging by the fuss you made about LAC representation a few
weeks ago.

>
> Good, and let's move on.

Now who is trying to close down dialogue?  This is exactly what MM is
bitter about !


-- 
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 correia.rui at gmail.com  Sat May 24 12:11:45 2008
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 18:11:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
Message-ID: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>

With all due respect

Methinks that when the dialogue become frank enough for people to
begin voicing things like "people we trust to represent us", then it
is time to admit something that I said a long time ago: how do we know
that the people on this list are who they say they are? How do we know
that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be that
works against the interests of civil society?

Judging from recent posting, I would dare say that there are a number
of mercenaries on the list - some so blatant ans passionate about the
interests that they defend that they have blown their cover.

Tenho dito! ('I have spoken', as they say in Portuguese)
-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 24 12:21:35 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 21:51:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>

Rui Correia wrote:

> that the people on this list are who they say they are? How do we know
> that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be that
> works against the interests of civil society?

1. Define civ soc

2. What would you consider to be in its interest?
	2a. Milton / Parminder et al's position that the tech community can
keep out
	2b. The positions I, Sadowsky, McTim etc have been advocating
	2c. Intermediate positions (Adam Peake, Ian Peter ..)

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 13:17:34 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 20:17:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805241017x27a1be2y4928dc41056b328f@mail.gmail.com>

My China!

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:
> With all due respect

not a very respectful post, but as I think I can hit this for six,
i'll have a go..

>
> Methinks that when the dialogue become frank enough for people to
> begin voicing things like "people we trust to represent us",
then it
> is time to admit something that I said a long time ago: how do we know
> that the people on this list are who they say they are?

Do you think that people have subbed to the list with assumed
identities, or are you saying that those who have participated in the
recent heated posting are agent provocateurs?  Both assertions are
equally laughable.  Who do you think has the budget to place such
agents, and why would they care about a list that has no actual
decision making power when it comes to passing bits?


 How do we know
> that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be that
> works against the interests of civil society?

As SR said, define that please.  I have offered a dozen definitions
all of which include the exisiting IG organisations that have been
excluded, a priori, from being nominated in 2008 by us to the MAG.  As
I have said long ago, and many times since CS interests ARE in the
current BUTOC system that works so well.  Can you tell me what you
think CS interests are?

>
> Judging from recent posting, I would dare say that there are a number
> of mercenaries on the list - some so blatant ans passionate about the
> interests that they defend that they have blown their cover.
>

So now, one can't be passionate unless they are a "mercenary"?
Everyone is passionate about their positions, so by that logic, we (on
this list) are all then mercenaries, no?

I'd be happy to detail exactly what I have made, cash in the bank wise
on IG projects in the 3 years I've been on the list:

 Zero, Bupkiss, Sweet Fanny Adams.

I doubt that the same is true for many others on this list, or those
who Veni calls CS-IGPs.  I would welcome full disclosure of list
members sources of IG income, so all of our conflicts of interest are
right out there in the open for all to see.

Oh, and when I speak here in Uganda, and am "facilitated", I take just
enough cash out of the envelope to pay for a bit of fuel, and give the
rest back (except the first time, as I had no clue how much was in the
envelope and was really embarrassed there was so much in their when I
got home and looked).

> Tenho dito! ('I have spoken', as they say in Portuguese)

and how sweetly paranoid it was too!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Sat May 24 13:35:56 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 13:35:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06200734c45e01093701@[10.0.1.2]>

It's true; on the Internet no know that you're a mercenary.  Or a dog.

I second Suresh's request.  Define civil society, and further, define 
its interests, in general, and especially with respect to Internet 
Governance.  Once that's done, then it will be very interesting to 
discuss the issue of who, if anyone, represents civil society, and to 
what ends.

I speak as someone who has been in the not-for profit sector for most 
of my life, and who has worked for the transfer of IT and networking 
technology in 50+ countries.  So you may be correct; I'm a mercenary, 
working for the use of technology to improve education and for 
economic and social progress.  Check my web page.  I am who I say I 
am.

George

At 6:11 PM +0200 5/24/08, Rui Correia wrote:
>With all due respect
>
>Methinks that when the dialogue become frank enough for people to
>begin voicing things like "people we trust to represent us", then it
>is time to admit something that I said a long time ago: how do we know
>that the people on this list are who they say they are? How do we know
>that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be that
>works against the interests of civil society?
>
>Judging from recent posting, I would dare say that there are a number
>of mercenaries on the list - some so blatant ans passionate about the
>interests that they defend that they have blown their cover.
>
>Tenho dito! ('I have spoken', as they say in Portuguese)
>--
>________________________________________________
>
>
>Rui Correia
>Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>2 Cutten St
>Horison
>Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
>South Africa
>Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
>Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central: 
+1.202.370.7734                     
SKYPE: sadowsky
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sat May 24 13:53:34 2008
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 19:53:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <p06200734c45e01093701@10.0.1.2>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p06200734c45e01093701@10.0.1.2>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0805241053p1d254fdr6b02d34f0a087e27@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting to note that the people identified by the person who
challenged me responded to 'defend' him.

I have far more respect for those peope WHO DIFFER WITH THOSE WHO
PRETEND TO DEFEND THEM - people who recognise that someone is trying
to help BUT have the courage to say that they differ with the people
who are trying to defend them. That's the sign of an independent mid
and there are not so many on this list!

I could - under duress - 'confess' the names of thiose who will speak
their minds, regradless of 'misguided' support.

I've spoken!

Rui

On 24/05/2008, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
> It's true; on the Internet no know that you're a mercenary.  Or a dog.
>
>  I second Suresh's request.  Define civil society, and further, define its
> interests, in general, and especially with respect to Internet Governance.
> Once that's done, then it will be very interesting to discuss the issue of
> who, if anyone, represents civil society, and to what ends.
>
>  I speak as someone who has been in the not-for profit sector for most of my
> life, and who has worked for the transfer of IT and networking technology in
> 50+ countries.  So you may be correct; I'm a mercenary, working for the use
> of technology to improve education and for economic and social progress.
> Check my web page.  I am who I say I am.
>
>  George
>
>
>  At 6:11 PM +0200 5/24/08, Rui Correia wrote:
>
> > With all due respect
> >
> > Methinks that when the dialogue become frank enough for people to
> > begin voicing things like "people we trust to represent us", then it
> > is time to admit something that I said a long time ago: how do we know
> > that the people on this list are who they say they are? How do we know
> > that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be that
> > works against the interests of civil society?
> >
> > Judging from recent posting, I would dare say that there are a number
> > of mercenaries on the list - some so blatant ans passionate about the
> > interests that they defend that they have blown their cover.
> >
> > Tenho dito! ('I have spoken', as they say in Portuguese)
> > --
> > ________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> > 2 Cutten St
> > Horison
> > Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
> > South Africa
> > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
> > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
> >
>
>  --
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>  2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
>  Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
>  tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
>  Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central: +1.202.370.7734
>                SKYPE: sadowsky
>


-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sat May 24 14:05:21 2008
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 20:05:21 +0200
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805241041w1a689ffbjb9cc10a07aed3e79@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f65fb55e0805241017x27a1be2y4928dc41056b328f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0805241041w1a689ffbjb9cc10a07aed3e79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0805241105j4a9d6881p3a70668b9f330cc0@mail.gmail.com>

Apparently I sent this ealier reply only to the person who commented,
whereas I meant to send it out to the list.

Fegards,

Rui

 EARLIER EMAIL:


Barring your comment about "sweetly paranoid", which escapes me, you
 are speaking to a fellow African, equally wounded by the general
 levelling of our delegates as "per diem bloodsuckers", as if nobody
 from Africa or other developing regions contributed anything.

 In terms of your questions:

 1.anybody - including you and and I - could have received an envelope
 to argue against the current (were that not the case there wouldn't be
 a handful of organisations dedicated to root out corruption bribery
 etc - and "OUR" list is not above any of that - NO paranoia here! I've
 worked in most countries in Southern Africa and have come across
 'suspect' individuals (not "agents provocateurs", as you say, which
 would be something entirely different.
 2. Being passionate has nothing to do with anything other than WHAT
 and WHY you are being passionate about ... and to a lot of people a
 little brown envelope makes a difference. Whereas Uganda is not SADC,
 in Southern Africa I have ENOUGH DOCUMENTED evidence of "envelopes".

 As for the envelopes ... very PERTINENT organisations on this list and
 on this THEME are familiar  with the practice ..... (but will deny,
 unlike Microsoft, which unashamedly admits to some 'some' unsavoury
 practices.

 Tenho dito

 best regards,


 Rui



 On 24/05/2008, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
 > My China!
 >
 >  On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:
 >  > With all due respect
 >
 >  not a very respectful post, but as I think I can hit this for six,
 >  i'll have a go..
 >
 >
 >  >
 >  > Methinks that when the dialogue become frank enough for people to
 >  > begin voicing things like "people we trust to represent us",
 >  then it
 >  > is time to admit something that I said a long time ago: how do we know
 >  > that the people on this list are who they say they are?
 >
 >
 > Do you think that people have subbed to the list with assumed
 >  identities, or are you saying that those who have participated in the
 >  recent heated posting are agent provocateurs?  Both assertions are
 >  equally laughable.  Who do you think has the budget to place such
 >  agents, and why would they care about a list that has no actual
 >  decision making power when it comes to passing bits?
 >
 >
 >
 >   How do we know
 >  > that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be that
 >  > works against the interests of civil society?
 >
 >
 > As SR said, define that please.  I have offered a dozen definitions
 >  all of which include the exisiting IG organisations that have been
 >  excluded, a priori, from being nominated in 2008 by us to the MAG.  As
 >  I have said long ago, and many times since CS interests ARE in the
 >  current BUTOC system that works so well.  Can you tell me what you
 >  think CS interests are?
 >
 >
 >  >
 >  > Judging from recent posting, I would dare say that there are a number
 >  > of mercenaries on the list - some so blatant ans passionate about the
 >  > interests that they defend that they have blown their cover.
 >  >
 >
 >
 > So now, one can't be passionate unless they are a "mercenary"?
 >  Everyone is passionate about their positions, so by that logic, we (on
 >  this list) are all then mercenaries, no?
 >
 >  I'd be happy to detail exactly what I have made, cash in the bank wise
 >  on IG projects in the 3 years I've been on the list:
 >
 >   Zero, Bupkiss, Sweet Fanny Adams.
 >
 >  I doubt that the same is true for many others on this list, or those
 >  who Veni calls CS-IGPs.  I would welcome full disclosure of list
 >  members sources of IG income, so all of our conflicts of interest are
 >  right out there in the open for all to see.
 >
 >  Oh, and when I speak here in Uganda, and am "facilitated", I take just
 >  enough cash out of the envelope to pay for a bit of fuel, and give the
 >  rest back (except the first time, as I had no clue how much was in the
 >  envelope and was really embarrassed there was so much in their when I
 >  got home and looked).
 >
 >
 >  > Tenho dito! ('I have spoken', as they say in Portuguese)
 >
 >
 > and how sweetly paranoid it was too!
 >
 >
 >  --
 >  Cheers,
 >
 >  McTim
 >  $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
 >



--
 ________________________________________________


 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
 2 Cutten St
 Horison
 Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
 South Africa
 Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
 _______________
 áâãçéêíóôõúç


-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sat May 24 14:07:01 2008
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 20:07:01 +0200
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
	 <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>

How can ANYONE ask ANYONE to define civil society?

 If we need to ask ourselves that, than we as well give up. I thought
 it was clear when the summit was structured around and three-prong
 front: government, business and THE REST.

 1. Government ostensibly operates from a position of the "public
 interest" (not that they have a mandate for MOST of the things they do
 in the public interest, but they do them nonetheless (look at how many
 EU members prepare to rubber stamp the Lisbon Accord;
 2. Business I am sure is Economics 101, no need for me to define (ie:
 profits, profits, profits).
 3. Civil Society is like family and friends - you trust them you
 invite them over to your house, you actually want to spoil them
 BECAUSE one (grammatically, it shout have been "you", but it is not
 mine to reason who is or is not, as YOU so rightly pointed out) enjoys
 their company and knows that they feel like you do about people being
 keep from enjoying their rights to the full because someone else's
 rights seem to take precedence.
 4. Mercenaries

 But, Suresh, perhaps, we should ask YOU to define Civil Society,
 seeing that you seem to know it all, judging by the the number of
 topics you adjudge yourself to be an expert on and therefore qualified
 to comment on - basically anything on this list. Has anybody ever
 brought up the energy properties of dog poo? Do you have any opinion
 on that?

 And before anybody starts shouting "ad hominem" (sexist as it is), it
 is not and Suresh will acknowledge that he comment on EVERYTHING.

 Waiting to hear his views on the energy properties of dog poo.

 Best regards,

 Rui




  It is like asking a


 On 24/05/2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
 > Rui Correia wrote:
 >
 >  > that the people on this list are who they say they are? How do we know
 >  > that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be that
 >  > works against the interests of civil society?
 >
 >
 > 1. Define civ soc
 >
 >  2. What would you consider to be in its interest?
 >         2a. Milton / Parminder et al's position that the tech community can
 >  keep out
 >         2b. The positions I, Sadowsky, McTim etc have been advocating
 >         2c. Intermediate positions (Adam Peake, Ian Peter ..)
 >
 >



--
 ________________________________________________


 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
 2 Cutten St
 Horison
 Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
 South Africa
 Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
 _______________
 áâãçéêíóôõúç


-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat May 24 14:31:38 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 21:31:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
	 <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805241131v77a153c4g64951a0cbc51fe60@mail.gmail.com>

Rui,

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:
> How can ANYONE ask ANYONE to define civil society?
>
>  If we need to ask ourselves that, than we as well give up. I thought
>  it was clear when the summit was structured around and three-prong
>  front: government, business and THE REST.
>

fine, so you agree then that existing IG bodies are CS, and staff
members of such should not be excluded as a class from being nominated
to the MAG by the IGC?

<snip>
>  3. Civil Society is like family and friends - you trust them you
>  invite them over to your house, you actually want to spoil them
>  BECAUSE one (grammatically, it shout have been "you", but it is not
>  mine to reason who is or is not, as YOU so rightly pointed out) enjoys
>  their company and knows that they feel like you do about people being
>  keep from enjoying their rights to the full because someone else's
>  rights seem to take precedence.

This is exactly the situation we have been discussing so vociferously
in the other threads.  The rights of a whole class of people have been
abrogated by a non-transparent decision by our 2008 Nomcom.

Would you support codifying into the charter the notion that folk
can't be excluded for selection because of the name of their employer?

>  4. Mercenaries
>
>  But, Suresh, perhaps, we should ask YOU to define Civil Society,
>  seeing that you seem to know it all, judging by the the number of
>  topics you adjudge yourself to be an expert on and therefore qualified
>  to comment on - basically anything on this list. Has anybody ever
>  brought up the energy properties of dog poo?

not recently IIRC.

Do you have any opinion
>  on that?

I do. it smells bad and is an inefficient fuel when compared to
Buffalo or even cow pats.

>
>  And before anybody starts shouting "ad hominem" (sexist as it is), it
>  is not and Suresh will acknowledge that he comment on EVERYTHING.
>
>  Waiting to hear his views on the energy properties of dog poo.

I bet he "close follows me" on this one. ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sat May 24 15:22:54 2008
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 21:22:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805241131v77a153c4g64951a0cbc51fe60@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
	 <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f65fb55e0805241131v77a153c4g64951a0cbc51fe60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0805241222u3d5e22e5y2a7621545e9554ef@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

Please do not confuse current criteria for membership of anything with
the possibility of being a mercenary - so, therefore, whatever I have
said on this or similar subjects has NOTHING to do with membership of
MAG!

NO, I would NOT support "the notion that people can't be excluded
because of their employer". I FULLY support questioning the
credentials of some of those who would like to pose as representing
"us". Especially those sympathetic of ICANN. I have no problem putting
my name behind the likes of APC, CIVICUS, Third Sector (Brazil), etc,
or similar.

Best regrards,

Rui


> fine, so you agree then that existing IG bodies are CS, and staff
>  members of such should not be excluded as a class from being nominated
>  to the MAG by the IGC?

 exactly the situation we have been discussing so vociferously
>  in the other threads.  The rights of a whole class of people have been
>  abrogated by a non-transparent decision by our 2008 Nomcom.
>
>  Would you support codifying into the charter the notion that folk
>  can't be excluded for selection because of the name of their employer?


>
>  >  4. Mercenaries
>  >
>  >  But, Suresh, perhaps, we should ask YOU to define Civil Society,
>  >  seeing that you seem to know it all, judging by the the number of
>  >  topics you adjudge yourself to be an expert on and therefore qualified
>  >  to comment on - basically anything on this list. Has anybody ever
>  >  brought up the energy properties of dog poo?
>
>
> not recently IIRC.
>
>
>  Do you have any opinion
>  >  on that?
>
>
> I do. it smells bad and is an inefficient fuel when compared to
>  Buffalo or even cow pats.
>
>
>  >
>  >  And before anybody starts shouting "ad hominem" (sexist as it is), it
>  >  is not and Suresh will acknowledge that he comment on EVERYTHING.
>  >
>  >  Waiting to hear his views on the energy properties of dog poo.
>
>
> I bet he "close follows me" on this one. ;-)
>
>
>  --
>
> Cheers,
>
>  McTim
>  $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>


-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat May 24 17:46:30 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 14:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list - THE INTERNET'S ADVENTURE
In-Reply-To: ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1211665226.19038.78@lists.cpsr.org>

THE HERO'S ADVENTURE 
(that is - All of us whon have ventured here ... reading this today)

"Furthermore, we have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of
all time have gone before us. The labyrinth is thoroughly known. We have only
to follow the thread of the hero path, and where we had thought to find an
abomination, we shall find a god. And where we had thought to slay another, we
shall slay ourselves. Where we had thought to travel outward, we will come to
the center of our own existence. And where we had thought to be alone, we will
be with all the world."

Joseph Campbell
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be  Sat May 24 17:46:04 2008
From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 23:46:04 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>  <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>  <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com> <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1211665564.48388c9c58b05@webmail.fundp.ac.be>

Friends,
Let me give an academic contribution to the definition of the civil society, by quoting:

1) the Centre for Civil Society (LSE, UL): "Civil society refers to the arena of uncœrced collective action 
around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those 
of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family 
and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of 
spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil 
societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-
governmental organisations, community groups, women's organisations, faith-based organisations, 
professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, 
coalitions and advocacy groups." ([Civil Society, 2007], Centre for Civil Society, London School of 
Economics, Report on Activities, July 2005 – August 2006, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/
publications )

2) Some French contributions, inspired by Habermas (Jürgen Habermas. The Structural Transformation 
of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger. The MIT 
Press, 1989): (translation of the following quotations from the French are by me)

2a) "The civil society consists of these associations, organizations and movements which at the same 
time welcome, condense and echo, by amplifying them in the public space, the resonance which the 
social problems find in the spheres of the private life." ([Pirotte, 2007], Gautier Pirrotte, La notion de 
société civile, La Découverte (Collection Repères), Paris, 2007, 122 p.) I don't like very much the 
restriction to "social problems found in the spheres of the private life".

2b) "The civil society covers all the active networks in the political public space which do not depend 
upon either the administrative and governmental system, or the business system." ([Weerts, 2004], 
Laurence Weerts, Quatre modèles théoriques pour penser la société civile dans l’ordre juridique 
international, Séminaire Société civile et démocratisation des organisations internationales, 28 et 29 
mai 2004, à l’Université libre de Bruxelles, http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/cdi/fichiers/
modeles_theoriques.pdf )

3) Others define the civil society as a "third way, between the political interests of the state and the 
economic interests of business."
Definition 2b has my preference. Hope this may help. But I don't see how to derive the "mercenaries on 
the list" from the definition!!!

Jacques Berleur
Professor Emeritus
Faculty of Informatics
University of Namur -  Belgium






En réponse à Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>:

> How can ANYONE ask ANYONE to define civil society?
> 
>  If we need to ask ourselves that, than we as well give up. I thought
>  it was clear when the summit was structured around and three-prong
>  front: government, business and THE REST.
> 
>  1. Government ostensibly operates from a position of the "public
>  interest" (not that they have a mandate for MOST of the things they do
>  in the public interest, but they do them nonetheless (look at how many
>  EU members prepare to rubber stamp the Lisbon Accord;
>  2. Business I am sure is Economics 101, no need for me to define (ie:
>  profits, profits, profits).
>  3. Civil Society is like family and friends - you trust them you
>  invite them over to your house, you actually want to spoil them
>  BECAUSE one (grammatically, it shout have been "you", but it is not
>  mine to reason who is or is not, as YOU so rightly pointed out) enjoys
>  their company and knows that they feel like you do about people being
>  keep from enjoying their rights to the full because someone else's
>  rights seem to take precedence.
>  4. Mercenaries
> 
>  But, Suresh, perhaps, we should ask YOU to define Civil Society,
>  seeing that you seem to know it all, judging by the the number of
>  topics you adjudge yourself to be an expert on and therefore qualified
>  to comment on - basically anything on this list. Has anybody ever
>  brought up the energy properties of dog poo? Do you have any opinion
>  on that?
> 
>  And before anybody starts shouting "ad hominem" (sexist as it is), it
>  is not and Suresh will acknowledge that he comment on EVERYTHING.
> 
>  Waiting to hear his views on the energy properties of dog poo.
> 
>  Best regards,
> 
>  Rui
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   It is like asking a
> 
> 
>  On 24/05/2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>  > Rui Correia wrote:
>  >
>  >  > that the people on this list are who they say they are? How do we
> know
>  >  > that the list has not been infiltrated by whoever might it be
> that
>  >  > works against the interests of civil society?
>  >
>  >
>  > 1. Define civ soc
>  >
>  >  2. What would you consider to be in its interest?
>  >         2a. Milton / Parminder et al's position that the tech
> community can
>  >  keep out
>  >         2b. The positions I, Sadowsky, McTim etc have been
> advocating
>  >         2c. Intermediate positions (Adam Peake, Ian Peter ..)
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> --
>  ________________________________________________
> 
> 
>  Rui Correia
>  Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>  2 Cutten St
>  Horison
>  Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
>  South Africa
>  Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
>  Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
>  _______________
>  áâãçéêíóôõúç
> 
> 
> -- 
> ________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> 2 Cutten St
> Horison
> Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
> South Africa
> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
> _______________
> áâãçéêíóôõúç
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 24 17:56:02 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 00:56:02 +0300
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805241222u3d5e22e5y2a7621545e9554ef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
	 <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f65fb55e0805241131v77a153c4g64951a0cbc51fe60@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0805241222u3d5e22e5y2a7621545e9554ef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805241456k5a5efa3fp4666f51e4cf9aff1@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please do not confuse current criteria for membership of anything with
> the possibility of being a mercenary

I won't. The current criteria for membership in this caucus is quoted
in the earlier threads, but basically it's open to anyone who signs
the charter.

While it is certainly possible that some shadowy organisation has paid
to have this list infiltrated, I think it highly unlikely.

It seems more likely to me that many CS folk who spend a great deal of
time on IG issues do so, in part, because they get paid to do so by
their employer.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, I aspire
to that meself on occasion.  I think we just need to face the fact
that these CS IG folk, including those who work for existing Internet
governance organisations ALL have the same potential for conflicts of
interest AND that excluding one subset of CS is deeply wrong.


 - so, therefore, whatever I have
> said on this or similar subjects has NOTHING to do with membership of
> MAG!

I understand, I was trying to focus on the root cause of this discussion.

>
> NO, I would NOT support "the notion that people can't be excluded
> because of their employer". I FULLY support questioning the
> credentials of some of those who would like to pose as representing
> "us". Especially those sympathetic of ICANN. I have no problem putting
> my name behind the likes of APC, CIVICUS, Third Sector (Brazil), etc,
> or similar.

So there is "good" CS and "not so good" CS?  Who makes the list of who is which?

As far as our charter goes, this is absolutely NOT the case, we are
all equal under the charter.  Either we follow our charter, or amend
it if we don't like it.

If we don't follow it, as was pointed out some weeks ago, we cease to
be the IGC, and become something else.

-- 
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 akigua at telia.com  Sat May 24 18:32:51 2008
From: akigua at telia.com (akigua at telia.com)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 00:32:51 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Sv: Re: [governance] What this debate is really about
Message-ID: <30677440.2774531211668371956.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps4-sn2>

Discrimination and exclusion always hurt and it´s hard to get used to.
Ann-Kristin 
Indigenous ICT tf

----Ursprungligt meddelande----
Från: dogwallah at gmail.com
Datum: 24-05-2008 06:31
Till: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Milton L Mueller"<mueller at syr.edu>
Ärende: Re: [governance] What this debate is really about

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> - Is it ok to bar someone based on class of employer (or any other
>> discernible choice attribute)?
>>
>
> Neither Nomcom nor IGC have any ability to "bar" anyone from 
anything.
>
> We are talking about who we want to put forward as _our_ 
representatives
> and spokespersons on the IG Forum Advisory Group.
>
> This debate is only partially about conflicts of interest; more
> fundamentally, it's all about WHO WE TRUST to represent us.

It's about discrimination, about exclusion a priori, with no
definition of who is possibly excluded.

>
> So, a note to Sadowsky, McTim and Suresh: you need to accept the 
fact
> that a significant number of people on this list do not fully trust 
a
> staff member or director of an RIR or ICANN to represent civil 
society
> on the AG.

But we have, in the past, nominated just such a person to the MAG.
Milton, I have pointed this out several times in the last few days.  I
would be deeply disappointed to find you didn't read every word of my
emails.  Perhaps you have just forgotten this fact.

You might think about why that is true.**
>
> Another fact: You are not going to change this situation by whining
> about the unfairness of the Nomcom or creating a big fight about its
> decision criteria.

I want to make sure such a rank injustice doesn't happen again, adding
one sentence to the nomcom bit of the charter seems easier than trying
to persuade people that their paranoia is unjustified.  It's a wrong
that i want to see righted, AFAIK, that's a  CS attribute.

There are better ways to address that problem. You
> are intelligent enough to figure out what they are.

I'm not, really.  When I see people breaking rules, ignoring (and even
creating falsehoods about) our precedents, I tend to think that making
the rules even more clear is a good solution.  What else do you
suggest?

-- 
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  Sat May 24 21:50:34 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 18:50:34 -0700
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0805241105j4a9d6881p3a70668b9f330cc0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com> <f65fb55e0805241017x27a1be2y4928dc41056b328f@mail.gmail.com> <ec8caada0805241041w1a689ffbjb9cc10a07aed3e79@mail.gmail.com> <ec8caada0805241105j4a9d6881p3a70668b9f330cc0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080525015034.GC8344@hserus.net>

Rui Correia [24/05/08 20:05 +0200]:
>Barring your comment about "sweetly paranoid", which escapes me, you
> are speaking to a fellow African, equally wounded by the general
> levelling of our delegates as "per diem bloodsuckers", as if nobody
> from Africa or other developing regions contributed anything.

Let me put this in context. I run the fellowships program for a large
asiapac technical conference (www.apricot.net)

I have run into several obviously deserving cases, and have, over the past
5 years, extended fellowship to them.

The problem is that every time a call for fellowships is announced, I and
my colleagues ALSO get inundated with a set of applications from the "per
diem bloodsucker (you said that bloodsucker word, btw, not I)" category.

You will be familiar with that type of person / NGO, living in Africa..
just as familiar as I am with their asian counterparts  - in fact the same
type of organization that likes to receive those little brown envelopes to
make points in favor of a particular business interest. I am not making a
blanket generalization here at all. Just pointing to a growing class of
people who thrive on making money out of this situation (and for whom
budgets and grants that would look like a pittance in dollars or euros is
actually a kings ransom when spent locally) 

> 1.anybody - including you and and I - could have received an envelope
> to argue against the current (were that not the case there wouldn't be

COULD have received?  Asking someone to prove the negative is as old a
debating fallacy as various others that you mentioned (such as ad hominem)

If you like, please do try to prove that any of us here is getting a penny
from ICANN (me for instance). 

	suresh
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun May 25 04:34:33 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:34:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] CFP Letter
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
 <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com>
 <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
 <f65fb55e0805241131v77a153c4g64951a0cbc51fe60@mail.gmail.com>
 <ec8caada0805241222u3d5e22e5y2a7621545e9554ef@mail.gmail.com>
 <f65fb55e0805241456k5a5efa3fp4666f51e4cf9aff1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DCD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
FYI
 
Interesting open letter from CFP to US presidential candidates.
 
http://cfp08.blogspot.com/2008/05/signature-thread-for-open-letter-to.html
 
Wolfgang
 
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From raul at lacnic.net  Sun May 25 09:49:59 2008
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:49:59 -0300
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.
 edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>

At 05:41 p.m. 23/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> >
> > Your email goes directly to the key point. You
> > are deffending the idea that it is impossible to
> > set up formal nomination process due to the fact
> > that some part of the community would not be
> > represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.
>
>That was not the exact point I was making, but it is one worth making. A
>discussion of that point would be more productive than an attack on the
>Nomcom report.

Of course. In fact I am not interested in 
attacking the Nomcom report, but discussing the concepts behind their behavior.
My point is that it is impossible to set up 
formal election mechanism base in the strict 
classification in 3 stakeholders group if later 
some organizartions/people are out of that classification.


> > Other important things is that you remark the
> > fact that this caucus nominates people to
> > represent strictly the caucus itself, what is
> > another very frank statement that avoid any
> > intention of representing a broader community than the own caucus.
>
>Yes, that was indeed my main point. Our nominations reflect IGC
>preferences. We lack the institutional capacity to claim that those
>preferences represent the whole of "civil society" on a global scale.
>But at least we are an open, CS caucus.

The list is open, no doubt. There is a doubt 
about the openess of the caucus, since the nomcom 
has taken some criteria that exclude people from the list.
I don't think that this is unfair, but it is 
necessary to define better what this caucus is. 
The caucus seems to be: all of those that 
consider themselves as civil society 
organizations or people except those that work for ........
This is at least a not clear criteria.


>  Just like the RIRs claim to
>represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
>because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
>portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
>processes.

You are wrong on this point. The RIRs don't claim 
in anyway to represent the Internet community.
Speaking for LACNIC, this is very very far from 
our view. If you find any document in our website 
that say somethink like that or let anybody to 
intepret that, please advice me because we have to change it immediately.
I have to say that I have never heard that the 
RIRs are representatives of the Internet Community.


><this section moved>
>
> > The discussion about the existence of 3, 4 or 5
> > stakeholders groups is, in my opinion, not very
> > important while we ensure that the IGF
> > Secretariat take care of the multiples
> > necessaries balances in their recommendations and
> > the UN Secretary General take care of the same
> > things at the time of taking decisions about the
> > MAG composition.
>
>I myself would prefer to have a truly bottom-up representational
>process, rather than a top-down process in which people lobby the
>Secretariat and UN S-G to make sure they are represented. It seems to me
>that the lobbying process would only favor stronger economic vested
>interests.

The discussion in this list is demonstrating that 
it is impossible. Who should appoint people on 
representation of CS? this list? it represents 
very partially the interests of the CSO. Regional 
caucuses? it would be a much better approach, it 
would be much more representative of the reality. 
The regional caucus, at least in LAC region, has 
proven to have a very different criteria for 
selecting their candidates to the MAG than the IGC.
But anyway many people could still claim for not 
being represented trought such system.

How many stakeholders group would we need? 
because there is a strong opposition to revisit 
this issue while it is clear that the strict 3 
groups definition leave many people in a confussing situation.


> >  It doesn't matter if the
> > academic community is a stakeholder or not if we
> > are confident that there will be people from this
> > community in the MAG, same happen with many other
> > organizations and inteests' groups.
>
>True, but how can I be confident that the representative of "academia"
>chosen by a remote Secretariat or SG will represent academics who are
>engaged and informed about internet governance? One can find academics
>on any side of a policy issue. It would not make me happy, e.g., to put
>Professor John Yoo on the MAG.** How can an "academic" be held
>accountable if his or her appointment came from the top and not from
>cultivating political support on the bottom? Isn't it possible that
>powerful interest groups would lobby the UN SG and others to put their
>pet academics on and to exclude more critical ones?

Mmmm. It would not happen since the IGF Sec is 
under a big public scrutiny. But anyway you, and 
all of course, have to accept that there could be 
people from the same stakeholder group than you 
with very different views. The reality is much 
more diverse and complex that some would like.


> > It is another key issue, because it is important
> > to understand that there are multiple nomination
> > channels, even for the same stakeholder group,
> > and nominations like the  IGC recommendations is just one of them.
>
>Yes, so we seem to agree on the fact that IGC nominations are of limited
>impact and that there are at the moment many other channels. And for the
>time being, that is fine.
>
>But we do not agree on the more fundamental point: I would not be
>satisfied with relying on the discretion of the UN SG or Secretariat
>over the longer term. I would prefer to see a real bottom up
>representational structure set up.

I have already demonstrated that it is impossible 
while other previous discussions are not solved before.


>And perhaps we both agree that the composition of the MAG is not all
>that important, as long as it is balanced.
>
>Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
>and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of goals
>and plans.

Maybe it is not a crazy idea.


Raúl


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 10:57:17 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:57:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br> <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>

For one, the list you make is misinformed (no reason for you to be 
misinformed, as this info is in English in the CGI.br website) -- these 
are names of CGI.br projects, not independent organizations. CGI.br 
itself is a non-profit multistakeholder organization with a majority of 
board members elected in an open, transparent, secure online voting 
process, from three non-gov sectors. To select the LA&C names, we, the 
LA&C caucus, did exactly the same open electoral process, from a caucus 
open to any participant. We did not create a nomcom subject to the 
questioning it is enduring now, including the unbelievable mishap 
regarding the indication of our region's recommended names.

Milton just repeats the simple fact that a (strong) number of 
stakeholders in the MAG belong to a group with a common vision and 
defend the group's positions in a very proactive, insistent and 
organized manner. Unlike many NGO's reps (let us please play down this 
Snow White tale of "in their individual capacities" as if they were had 
not become MAG members by the wish of some interest group), some of 
their vocals are well paid to do this and to be present in the meetings.

Are they wrong? No, this is an opportunity they have been given by the 
circumstances, and they have seized this opportunity to almost take over 
the space -- the example Milton points out (the incredible resistance 
against who controls or ought to control the logical infrastructure 
becoming a main theme of the IGF) being an obvious example.

The heated discussion we are witnessing is in essence a dispute to 
preserve or reinforce such dominance in light of the 1/3 renewal, period.

So, let us move on to the themes, to the workshops, to the process of 
the IGF itself etc -- this is not going to change whatever the screams 
and diatribes we send to each other's screens.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> Carlos,
> 
> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
>> Milton, you put the finger right in the wound (in Brazilian portuguese: "por
>> o dedo na ferida").
> 
> Would you be happy if any of the staff from any of these orgs;
> 
> Registro.br
> PTTMetro
> CERT.br
> CETIC.br
> 
>  were on this list, wanted to be nominated to the MAG, but couldn't
> because of who their employer is?  I suspect you would be very unhappy
> indeed, judging by the fuss you made about LAC representation a few
> weeks ago.
> 
>> Good, and let's move on.
> 
> Now who is trying to close down dialogue?  This is exactly what MM is
> bitter about !
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 11:05:44 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:05:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <2ED2CCDD-AB20-4506-B7E0-1132CC2C01F4@psg.com>

Hi,

On 25 May 2008, at 09:49, Raul Echeberria wrote:

>>
>> Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
>> and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of  
>> goals
>> and plans.
>
> Maybe it is not a crazy idea.
>


I thought it was the UNSG who needed the MAG.

And please believe me the reports from every consultation and MAG  
meeting and all the recommendations do go back the UNSG's office, for  
approval and other decisions.   I don't know who in the UNSG's office  
does what, but it certainly is the UNSG, as an office, that makes all  
the final decisions with the IGF secretariat waiting on those  
decisions before proceeding.

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 garth.graham at telus.net  Sun May 25 11:23:21 2008
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 08:23:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <1211665564.48388c9c58b05@webmail.fundp.ac.be>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>  <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>  <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com> <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com> <1211665564.48388c9c58b05@webmail.fundp.ac.be>
Message-ID: <AE646080-1235-4EBC-90AF-D0FD30A4D218@telus.net>

On 24-May-08, at 2:46 PM, Jacques Berleur wrote:

> 2b) "The civil society covers all the active networks in the  
> political public space which do not depend
> upon either the administrative and governmental system, or the  
> business system." ([Weerts, 2004],
> .......
>
> Definition 2b has my preference. Hope this may help. But I don't  
> see how to derive the "mercenaries on
> the list" from the definition!!!

The way you get to "mercenaries" is by being a bit less descriptive  
and a bit more cynical about the system's process in the definition.   
In answer to that “what is civil society?” question, I prefer the  
argument of Martin Carnoy and Manuel Castells that global alliances  
of common interest among corporations and governments have invented a  
construct called “civil society.”  They said:

“The other axis of the nation-state's reconfiguration is its attempt  
to regain legitimacy and to represent the social diversity of its  
constituency through the process of decentralization and devolution  
of power and resources. This translates primarily into revitalizing  
sub-state national governments (such as Scotland or Catalonia),  
regional governments, local governments, and non-governmental  
organizations. Indeed, the dramatic expansion of non-governmental  
organizations around the world, most of them subsidized and supported  
by the state, can be interpreted as the extension of the state into  
civil society, in an effort to diffuse conflict and increase  
legitimacy by shifting resources and responsibility to the  
grassroots.”  …..

…..   “What emerges is a new form of the state. It is a state made of  
shared institutions, and enacted by bargaining and interactive  
iteration all along the chain of decision making: national  
governments, co-national governments, supra-national bodies,  
international institutions, governments of nationalities, regional  
governments, local governments, and NGOs (in our conception: neo- 
governmental organizations). Decision-making and representation take  
place all along the chain, not necessarily in the hierarchical, pre- 
scripted order. This new state functions as a network, in which all  
nodes interact, and are equally necessary for the performance of  
state's functions. The state of the Information Age is a network state.”

…. “Thus, the state diversifies the mechanisms and levels of its key  
functions (accumulation, reproduction, domination and legitimation),  
and distributes its performance along the network. The nation-state  
becomes an important, coordinating node in this interaction, but it  
does not concentrate either the power or the responsibility to  
respond to conflicting pressures.”

….. “The second way to establish legitimacy in the new historical  
context is decentralization of state power to sub-state levels: to  
sub-national groupings, to regions, and to local governments. This  
increases the probability that citizens will identify with their  
institutions and participate in the political process. While nation- 
states cede power, they also shift responsibility, in the hope of  
creating buffers between citizens' disaffection and national  
governments. Legitimacy through decentralization and citizen  
participation in non-governmental organizations seems to be the new  
frontier of the state in the 21st century.

  Still, the state will have to respond to social movements' demands  
to avoid a legitimacy crisis.”  ……

Quotes from: Martin Carnoy and Manuel Castells, “Globalization, the  
knowledge society and the network state: Poulantzas at the  
millennium,” Global Networks, 1, 1, 2001, 1-18

There is, after all, some joy in the thought that many of the debates  
about representation on the IGC list are merely a reflection of "the  
new frontier of the state in the 21st century."  Also that, if "the  
state of the Information Age is a network state," then the protocol  
that governs its structure is called "Internet Protocol."

GG____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun May 25 11:39:24 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:39:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Of course. In fact I am not interested in
> attacking the Nomcom report, but discussing the concepts behind their
> behavior.
> My point is that it is impossible to set up
> formal election mechanism base in the strict
> classification in 3 stakeholders group if later
> some organizartions/people are out of that classification.

Yes, "stakeholder classifications," as Karl and others have explained,
is always troublesome. That is why I raised the issue of whether we
really need a MAG as a formally constituted "representative" body. 

> >But at least we are an open, CS caucus.
> 
> The list is open, no doubt. There is a doubt
> about the openess of the caucus, since the nomcom
> has taken some criteria that exclude people from the list.

Oh no, that is not true. No one is excluded from this list. No one has
ever asserted that anyone has been excluded from the list, though I
believe the charter provides for suspension or removal from the list for
personal insults and spam and other "netiquette" violations. No one has
ever been disciplined under these guidelines, however. Nomcom has not
done what you say, it has merely refused to nominate certain people as
caucus representatives because of potential conflicts of interest. But
those people can still be part of the caucus.

> necessary to define better what this caucus is.
> The caucus seems to be: all of those that

Raul, with respect, there is a very clear definition of this caucus, and
it is contained in the charter: 
http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html 
Please take a look at it.

> >  Just like the RIRs claim to
> >represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
> >because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
> >portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
> >processes.
> 
> You are wrong on this point. The RIRs don't claim
> in anyway to represent the Internet community.

OK, I see I worded this badly. No, RIRs don't claim to represent the
entire Internet community, you are right. But they do claim that the
policies they adopt are a product of, and represent the will of, the
Internet community. Just this Friday I had an ARIN representative speak
to a group of students and heard this claim made repeatedly. As I said,
I do not think this is a bad or false claim, the problem is what we mean
by "community." ARIN can claim that anyone who wants to affected RIR
policy can get involved in it, just as this caucus can claim that any
eligible CS person who wants to get involved can do so. So we can claim
to be a legitimate vehicle for transmitting civil society perspectives
into IGF just as ARIN can claim to be a legitimate vehicle for
developing policies re addressing.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun May 25 11:55:34 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:25:34 -0430
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list-- Amateur, professional,
 mercenary semantics
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>  <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>  <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com> <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com> <1211665564.48388c9c58b05@webmail.fundp.ac.be> <AE646080-1235-4EBC-90AF-D0FD30A4D218@telus.net>
Message-ID: <00dd01c8be7f$c969b050$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

In an informal context, an amateur does what they do, for the love of their art, craft, or other activity, sometimes inexpertly, sometimes very well.

A professional is often given that status because they are paid to carry out their activity, as opposed to an amateur, who does not get paid. Sometimes this indicates a higher level of quality, but this is not always true.

Since in this discussion we are not talking about mercenaries as paid combatants in an armed conflict, what is the difference between a professional and a mercenary? In the best case scenario, isn't a professional someone who gets paid to do what they want to do anyway? Wouldn't we RATHER have professionals working with us? 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Garth Graham 
  To: governance 
  Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 10:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] Mercenaries on the list


  On 24-May-08, at 2:46 PM, Jacques Berleur wrote:

  > 2b) "The civil society covers all the active networks in the  
  > political public space which do not depend
  > upon either the administrative and governmental system, or the  
  > business system." ([Weerts, 2004],
  > .......
  >
  > Definition 2b has my preference. Hope this may help. But I don't  
  > see how to derive the "mercenaries on
  > the list" from the definition!!!

  The way you get to "mercenaries" is by being a bit less descriptive  
  and a bit more cynical about the system's process in the definition.   
  In answer to that “what is civil society?” question, I prefer the  
  argument of Martin Carnoy and Manuel Castells that global alliances  
  of common interest among corporations and governments have invented a  
  construct called “civil society.”  They said:

  “The other axis of the nation-state's reconfiguration is its attempt  
  to regain legitimacy and to represent the social diversity of its  
  constituency through the process of decentralization and devolution  
  of power and resources. This translates primarily into revitalizing  
  sub-state national governments (such as Scotland or Catalonia),  
  regional governments, local governments, and non-governmental  
  organizations. Indeed, the dramatic expansion of non-governmental  
  organizations around the world, most of them subsidized and supported  
  by the state, can be interpreted as the extension of the state into  
  civil society, in an effort to diffuse conflict and increase  
  legitimacy by shifting resources and responsibility to the  
  grassroots.”  …..

  …..   “What emerges is a new form of the state. It is a state made of  
  shared institutions, and enacted by bargaining and interactive  
  iteration all along the chain of decision making: national  
  governments, co-national governments, supra-national bodies,  
  international institutions, governments of nationalities, regional  
  governments, local governments, and NGOs (in our conception: neo- 
  governmental organizations). Decision-making and representation take  
  place all along the chain, not necessarily in the hierarchical, pre- 
  scripted order. This new state functions as a network, in which all  
  nodes interact, and are equally necessary for the performance of  
  state's functions. The state of the Information Age is a network state.”

  …. “Thus, the state diversifies the mechanisms and levels of its key  
  functions (accumulation, reproduction, domination and legitimation),  
  and distributes its performance along the network. The nation-state  
  becomes an important, coordinating node in this interaction, but it  
  does not concentrate either the power or the responsibility to  
  respond to conflicting pressures.”

  ….. “The second way to establish legitimacy in the new historical  
  context is decentralization of state power to sub-state levels: to  
  sub-national groupings, to regions, and to local governments. This  
  increases the probability that citizens will identify with their  
  institutions and participate in the political process. While nation- 
  states cede power, they also shift responsibility, in the hope of  
  creating buffers between citizens' disaffection and national  
  governments. Legitimacy through decentralization and citizen  
  participation in non-governmental organizations seems to be the new  
  frontier of the state in the 21st century.

    Still, the state will have to respond to social movements' demands  
  to avoid a legitimacy crisis.”  ……

  Quotes from: Martin Carnoy and Manuel Castells, “Globalization, the  
  knowledge society and the network state: Poulantzas at the  
  millennium,” Global Networks, 1, 1, 2001, 1-18

  There is, after all, some joy in the thought that many of the debates  
  about representation on the IGC list are merely a reflection of "the  
  new frontier of the state in the 21st century."  Also that, if "the  
  state of the Information Age is a network state," then the protocol  
  that governs its structure is called "Internet Protocol."

  GG____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080525/015918bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 11:58:31 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:58:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br> <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com> <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7200@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Carlos, you have summarized the situation perfectly, and with good
grace. 
I repeat with you: let's move on to the substantive issues. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> 
> Milton just repeats the simple fact that a (strong) number of
> stakeholders in the MAG belong to a group with a common vision and
> defend the group's positions in a very proactive, insistent and
> organized manner. Unlike many NGO's reps (let us please play down this
> Snow White tale of "in their individual capacities" as if they had
> not become MAG members by the wish of some interest group), some of
> their vocals are well paid to do this and to be present in the
meetings.
> 
> Are they wrong? No, this is an opportunity they have been given by the
> circumstances, and they have seized this opportunity to almost take
over
> the space -- the example Milton points out (the incredible resistance
> against who controls or ought to control the logical infrastructure
> becoming a main theme of the IGF) being an obvious example.
> 
> The heated discussion we are witnessing is in essence a dispute to
> preserve or reinforce such dominance in light of the 1/3 renewal,
period.
> 
> So, let us move on to the themes, to the workshops, to the process of
> the IGF itself etc -- this is not going to change whatever the screams
> and diatribes we send to each other's screens.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sun May 25 12:06:46 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 21:36:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list-- Amateur, professional,
 mercenary semantics
In-Reply-To: <00dd01c8be7f$c969b050$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>  <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>  <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com> <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com> <1211665564.48388c9c58b05@webmail.fundp.ac.be> <AE646080-1235-4EBC-90AF-D0FD30A4D218@telus.net> <00dd01c8be7f$c969b050$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <004501c8be81$5693e210$03bba630$@net>

With actual, well defined professionals, there's no conflict of interest
from advocating your party's line, or fighting for your party's cause.
Advocacy for pay, or fight for pay mercenaries tend to engender far less
trust, and far more contempt, for obvious reasons, starting with the entire
"conflict of interest" thing and going on to how loyal to a particular cause
such people can be in the long run.

 

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:26 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Mercenaries on the list-- Amateur, professional,
mercenary semantics

 

Since in this discussion we are not talking about mercenaries as paid
combatants in an armed conflict, what is the difference between a
professional and a mercenary? In the best case scenario, isn't a
professional someone who gets paid to do what they want to do anyway?
Wouldn't we RATHER have professionals working with us? 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080525/a75b46b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From raul at lacnic.net  Sun May 25 12:25:48 2008
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 13:25:48 -0300
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.
 edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525125059.04633678@lacnic.net>

At 12:39 p.m. 25/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Of course. In fact I am not interested in
> > attacking the Nomcom report, but discussing the concepts behind their
> > behavior.
> > My point is that it is impossible to set up
> > formal election mechanism base in the strict
> > classification in 3 stakeholders group if later
> > some organizartions/people are out of that classification.
>
>Yes, "stakeholder classifications," as Karl and others have explained,
>is always troublesome. That is why I raised the issue of whether we
>really need a MAG as a formally constituted "representative" body.
>
> > >But at least we are an open, CS caucus.
> >
> > The list is open, no doubt. There is a doubt
> > about the openess of the caucus, since the nomcom
> > has taken some criteria that exclude people from the list.
>
>Oh no, that is not true. No one is excluded from this list. No one has
>ever asserted that anyone has been excluded from the list, though I
>believe the charter provides for suspension or removal from the list for
>personal insults and spam and other "netiquette" violations. No one has
>ever been disciplined under these guidelines, however. Nomcom has not
>done what you say, it has merely refused to nominate certain people as
>caucus representatives because of potential conflicts of interest. But
>those people can still be part of the caucus.

Sorry. My english was not clear.
I didn't want to say that the nomcom excluded people from the list.
What I tried to say is that people who is 
subscribed to this list was excluded by the 
nomcom from the possibility of being nominated. 
It was for a given reason, it really doesn't 
matter what, but the openess of the caucus was 
restricted since somebody decided that not all 
the subscribers have the same rights.


> > necessary to define better what this caucus is.
> > The caucus seems to be: all of those that
>
>Raul, with respect, there is a very clear definition of this caucus, and
>it is contained in the charter:
>http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html
>Please take a look at

Yes, I know it. :-)
The charter is much broader regarding 
participation that the spirit behind several 
positions recently expressed in the list (including you).


> > >  Just like the RIRs claim to
> > >represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
> > >because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
> > >portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
> > >processes.
> >
> > You are wrong on this point. The RIRs don't claim
> > in anyway to represent the Internet community.
>
>OK, I see I worded this badly. No, RIRs don't claim to represent the
>entire Internet community, you are right.

Thank you.


>But they do claim that the
>policies they adopt are a product of, and represent the will of, the
>Internet community.

It is also wrong.
I have never heard that before.
Same comment, please tell me where it is said 
that, because it should be corrected.


>Just this Friday I had an ARIN representative speak
>to a group of students and heard this claim made repeatedly. As I said,
>I do not think this is a bad or false claim, the problem is what we mean
>by "community." ARIN can claim that anyone who wants to affected RIR
>policy can get involved in it, just as this caucus can claim that any
>eligible CS person who wants to get involved can do so. So we can claim
>to be a legitimate vehicle for transmitting civil society perspectives
>into IGF just as ARIN can claim to be a legitimate vehicle for
>developing policies re addressing.

The difference is that if you were nominated to 
represent an RIR community in the Address Council 
for example (under the established procedures) 
nobody will say tht you can nor run the election 
because the kind of organization to which you 
work or because you defend certain ideas. The 
same applies to the RIRs' board elections.
So I think that your comparision is not good.
In fact I didn't start this discussion for 
deffending the RIRs. It is you that are insisting in this point.


Raúl


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 25 12:33:49 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 12:33:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
> Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
> Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
> embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.

A major issue, of course. 

But can you provide me with an instance of when the MAG did anything to
check the power of the Secretariat? I am open to facts. 

> It is also easier for the Secretariat to palm off the recommendations
> of the open consultations to the Secretary-General (a fiction, of
> course) so that it can disclaim responsibility for the dismissal of
> those recommendations.

Yes, that obviously happens now. And the MAG as far as I know never
issues any recommendations. So I am unclear as to how this point bears
on the question. When has there been a clear resolution of the advisory
group? When has the Secretariat followed such a resolution when it
didn't really want to?

> Harder for it to ignore a clear resolution of
> the Advisory Group, whose numbers and constituencies are known and
> fixed.  (Still not impossible, though; case in point, the Chairman
> shutting down discussion within the Advisory Group of any variation to
> the 50% representation of governments.)

But note that this shutdown occurred in the context of a
representational quota for the MAG. If there were no MAG, there would be
no such debates. 

> For all its manifest faults, at least the Advisory Group, now that it
> has increased its transparency thorough reports of its meetings and
> mailing list summaries, is somewhat more accountable than the
> Secretariat alone.

I guess the conclusion I would draw from your comments is, if we want to
have a MAG it should not be such a loose advisory group but should have
formally defined powers in relation to the Secretariat. If the MAG does
not have those powers, it is definitely not worth all the political fuss
that surrounds 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Sun May 25 21:32:43 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:32:43 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6B824BC7-0115-4EB8-A4F0-2BB38F46CD00@Malcolm.id.au>

On 26/05/2008, at 12:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I guess the conclusion I would draw from your comments is, if we  
> want to
> have a MAG it should not be such a loose advisory group but should  
> have
> formally defined powers in relation to the Secretariat. If the MAG  
> does
> not have those powers, it is definitely not worth all the political  
> fuss
> that surrounds it.

That is a fair summation.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sun May 25 21:55:17 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:55:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <6B824BC7-0115-4EB8-A4F0-2BB38F46CD00@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <6B824BC7-0115-4EB8-A4F0-2BB38F46CD00@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <20080526015517.GA11902@hserus.net>

Jeremy Malcolm [26/05/08 09:32 +0800]:
> That is a fair summation.

.. of an unacceptably na�ve proposal.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 02:24:22 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:24:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>
	 <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com>

Carlos,

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> For one, the list you make is misinformed (no reason for you to be
> misinformed, as this info is in English in the CGI.br website) -- these are
> names of CGI.br projects, not independent organizations.

How is that relevant to the question, which I note that you have not
answered.  I will try to re-word it for your convenience;

If one of the staff of the .br ccTLD was a member of this caucus AND
wanted to be nominated to the IGF MAG from this caucus (instead of by
your region), but was excluded from this possibility by the decision
made by our 2008 NomCom, would you be happy?


>
> Milton just repeats the simple fact that a (strong) number of stakeholders
> in the MAG belong to a group with a common vision and defend the group's
> positions in a very proactive, insistent and organized manner.

That is irrelevant to our abused process.


Unlike many
> NGO's reps (let us please play down this Snow White tale of "in their
> individual capacities" as if they were had not become MAG members by the
> wish of some interest group), some of their vocals are well paid to do this
> and to be present in the meetings.

A) this is also irrelevant to our abused process

B)  I would suggest this is "just like" and not "unlike many NGO reps".


>
> Are they wrong? No, this is an opportunity they have been given by the
> circumstances, and they have seized this opportunity to almost take over the
> space -- the example Milton points out (the incredible resistance against
> who controls or ought to control the logical infrastructure becoming a main
> theme of the IGF) being an obvious example.

So because there are so many of "them" already on the MAG, it's ok to
for "us" to exclude them from our nomination to the MAG?

>
> The heated discussion we are witnessing is in essence a dispute to preserve
> or reinforce such dominance in light of the 1/3 renewal, period.
>

no, it's not.  It's about fairness and legitimacy of our decsion
amking processes.


> So, let us move on to the themes, to the workshops, to the process of the
> IGF itself etc -- this is not going to change whatever the screams and
> diatribes we send to each other's screens.

I think it was Henry Louis Mencken who said "if you want peace, work
for justice.  This has recently morphed into "Know justice, know
peace" which in turn, has morphed into "no justice, no peace".

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From guru at itforchange.net  Mon May 26 02:41:48 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:11:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>	 <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>	 <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br> <f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483A5BAC.5080400@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/ab7b4955/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 02:58:45 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:28:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <483A5BAC.5080400@itforchange.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>	 <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>	 <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br> <f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com> <483A5BAC.5080400@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <00fb01c8befd$f3016f60$d9044e20$@net>

Let us put it this way.  

 

1.       What the nomcom advocated was a blanket exclusion 

2.       What you are proposing is a person by person, case by case
evaluation

 

So, which is it?   And if they have CS cred, and CS backgrounds, they are
CS, period - whoever their employer may be

 

                srs

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 12:12 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
Cc: Carlos Afonso
Subject: Re: [governance] What this debate is really about

 

Suppose Kieren McCarthy, employee ICANN and Bertrand de La Chapelle, GAC
member representing French Govt (who are both I think members of this
mailing list) asked endorsement from IGC for MAG membership, do you think
IGC should endorse them? 

relationship (which many IGC members do have, such as Avri with IGF
secretariat) may be a very different situation, needing to be assessed
differently.



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/c6c2f6be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 02:59:37 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:59:37 +0300
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <483A5BAC.5080400@itforchange.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>
	 <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>
	 <f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <483A5BAC.5080400@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805252359x6a7415cbs4f7b6b232f3fe033@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim,
>
> Suppose Kieren McCarthy, employee ICANN and Bertrand de La Chapelle, GAC
> member representing French Govt (who are both I think members of this
> mailing list) asked endorsement from IGC for MAG membership, do you think
> IGC should endorse them?

I think any nomcom shouldn't a priori take a decision unauthorised by
the larger caucus.

The short answer is that the caucus COULD endorse them.  SHOULD is a
matter to be decided based on the candidates statements about these
potential conflicts, as I assume that either the nomcom would ask, or
the candidates would recognise potential conflicts and volunteer their
views on such).  SHOULD BE ABLE TO nominate is my view.

>
> In my view, even though both have participated in the IGC list and have
> taken on CS identities, their current role prevents them from being able to
> represent CS. In any discussion within MAG (or any such ms group), it is
> unreasonable to expect that they will not represent ICANN and the French
> Govt respectively and these will be 'default' positions which will preclude
> their  being able to  effectively represent CS positions.

Well, since ICANN is a CS body IMO, then certainly Keiren would be
representing CS views.  It's just a part of CS that you don't agree
with.  I have no doubt that Bertrand COULD represent both saying "the
French government position is "x", while the IGC position is "y".  He
could also "in his personal capacity" give his own views if they
differ from either of the above.

>
> While it is true that many people don multiple hats etc, but one needs to
> investigate the facts of the case and as in the above example, where a
> specific hat is clearly the primary one, imo that will help in deciding the
> stakeholder group membership. On the other hand, a part time consulting
> relationship (which many IGC members do have, such as Avri with IGF
> secretariat) may be a very different situation, needing to be assessed
> differently.

Agreed, several people wear several hats. Excluding a group of people
wearing "blue hats" because one doesn't like "blue" does injustice to
the people on this list who prefer the color blue.


>
> Your answer will help me better understand your argument.
>

I hope that helps.

Perhaps you can tell us if the nomcom read rules # 4 and 5 before
making your decision?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From guru at itforchange.net  Mon May 26 02:59:42 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:29:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com> <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
Message-ID: <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/bbc95209/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 03:13:52 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:43:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com> <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net> <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <011901c8bf00$0f4192c0$2dc4b840$@net>

As I said, if they have CS cred, and CS backgrounds, they are CS, period -
whoever their employer may be.

 

Deliberately exclusionary language and positions like this are completely
against the letter and the spirit of the charter. Besides, such language
serves to  deprive you of a major asset - a large majority of CS just don't
have the necessary technical awareness to meaningfully participate in these
discussions.  

 

By alienating these people (and quite a few of them, such as Kieren, have
solid CS cred behind them), you are robbing yourself of some of your best
and most potent advocates.

 

Which is why I have, so frequently, called for DIPLO and other organizations
to empower and  facilitate bridge courses for CS to meaningfully participate
in these discussions.

 

                suresh

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 12:30 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: 'Rui Correia'
Subject: Re: [governance] Mercenaries on the list

 

Suresh

Repeatedly on this list, I (and Parminder and others) have sought the
definition of the 'technical community'. This term is being used ambiguously
to reflect two different ideas:

a. people who have technical expertise - such as yourself, McTim, Carlos,
Izumi etc etc
b. Organizations that are currently performing Internet
Administration/Governance (who we termed as IAB in a earlier discussion on
the list) - which basically implies the people who represent them 

I don't think it is anyones case that the first group is to be completely
kept out of CS. If that is what you are implying in your mail below, that is
the position of Parminder and Milton , then I suggest that it is a
misrepresentation.

On the other hand, wrt IAB, the position of IGC is clear. See the the Civil
Society Internet Governance Caucus's Inputs for the Open IGF Consultations,
Geneva, 26th February, 2008 -
http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC%20-%20MAG%20Rotation.pdf

"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".

As I mentioned in my previous mail, IGC selects members for the CS quota.
Hence it seems clear to me that IABs (being people who represent IABs)
cannot seek representation in MAG through IGC / with IGC endorsement.

Guru

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/1d31cf6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 12:08:48 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:08:48 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: <incom> Mobile Internet take-up is speeding the
 take-up of IPv6 in  Africa
Message-ID: <002d01c8bf4c$112bc500$9600a8c0@michael78xnoln>


This may be of interest...

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info
[mailto:incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info] On Behalf Of Soenke Zehle
Sent: May 24, 2008 4:32 AM
To: incom
Subject: <incom> Mobile Internet take-up is speeding the take-up of IPv6 in
Africa


http://www.afrinic.net/meeting/afrinic-8/index.htm
http://www.balancingact-africa.com
Issue no 406
22nd May 2008

Mobile Internet take-up is speeding the take-up of IPv6 in Africa

A few years ago Africa's new Internet Numbers Registry, AfriNIC looked 
more of a dream and a prayer than a reality. But the take-up of IPv4 
Internet addresses, which has almost reached 85% of those allocated, has 
shown that it can do its job and do it well. It's now experiencing a 
second wave of growth as mobile companies buy IPv6 addresses to keep up 
with the expansion of mobile data services. Russell Southwood spoke to 
AfriNIC's CEO Adiel Akplogan about what it all means.

The process of preparing for the transition to IPv6 started in December 
2005 when AfriNIC ran its first training course on the subject as part 
of its annual meeting. Back then, its adoption may have seemed less 
pressing and indeed maybe slightly irrelevant for Africa. But the 
dramatic take-up of AfriNIC's IPv4 allocation has made this "it's not 
for Africa" position dangerously outdated.

Although AfriNIC's latest study predicts that IPv4 addresses will run 
out in 2012, the pressure to consider IPv6 addresses as an alternative 
will grow stronger as time goes by. For since AfriNIC started, there has 
been a 100% growth in IPv4 allocations and this has increased 
dramatically again with the entry of 3G mobile data services.

Overall, AfriNIC has allocated 16 million addresses, which means that 
somewhere out there on the continent there are 16 million devices that 
need an IP address to operate. These could be anything from a PC to a 
printer or a mobile phone. Last year it allocated 5 million addresses 
and a significant proportion of these were from mobile operators moving 
from private to public IPv4 addresses to meet data service demand.

In three years time, it projects that the number of addresses allocated 
will have doubled to approximately 32 million. The tantalising but 
slightly elusive calculation is to wonder how many devices/addresses 
there are on average per person because out of that guesstimate it would 
be possible to say roughly how many people had access to an Internet 
ready device of some sort.

In 2005 there were only four allocations of IPv6 addresses but now there 
are nearly 60 allocations so the transition point may well get closer as 
mobile companies transition first to IPv4 addresses (exhausting the 
existing allocation more quickly than the 2012 prediction) and switch to 
IPv6. As Adiel Akplogan notes:" This runs to billions of addresses." 
AfriNIC is looking to make sure that IPv6 addresses are deployed in each 
African country.

So what's so good about IPv6? The cynics always believe that upgrades 
simply fiddle with what was once perfectly adequate and need whole new 
generations of fiddling to get them right. Akplogan says this will not 
be the case as IPv6 has drawn heavily on the experience of IPv4 and it 
contains features that are much easier to access, things that existed in 
IPv4 but which were not really necessarily widely used.

And those features? Akplogan said:"Security is embedded in IPv6 and it's 
possible to encrypt communications and there will be the development of 
apps around that as it will be possible to safely encypt on the fly."

But the key draw in terms of how Africa's Internet markets are 
developing is IPv6 also has mobility embedded in it:"We'll reach a point 
where IP addresses will become our identity. You can reach someone on 
any device on the same IP addresses."

"A number of organisations have recognized that these advantages are 
relevant to Africa and have imposed a rule that all new equipment is 
IPv6-ready."
_______________________________________________
incom-l mailing list
incom-l at incommunicado.info http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/incom-l


!DSPAM:2676,4837fb62227566928422371!

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 05:23:07 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:23:07 +1000
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Raul wrote (and I agree)

>My point is that it is impossible to set up formal election mechanism base
>in the strict classification in 3 stakeholders group if later some
>organizartions/people are out of that classification.


Agreed! Rather we should acknowledge that there really are four
classifications, and the technical community is a stakeholder in itself. I
don't think that is going to change this time around, and it certainly was a
consideration in first round MAG appointments. A case in point being your
own appointment Raul - to me absolutely worthy and I hope you are
re-appointed - but your nomination did not come from this civil society
list. Nor did those of the ISOC, ICANN, and other technical community reps
on the MAG). 


If you acknowledge the reality of a fourth stakeholder in IGF, you can
understand why some civil society members may not want part of its limited
number of seats going to representatives of another group. So in fact this
whole debate really reflects whether a fourth stakeholder group exists or
does not exist - not some conspiracy to deny basic human rights on the
grounds of employment as has been characterized.

Looks to me from MAG representation and documentation from IGF meetings that
the fourth group does exist, has nominated candidates in the past, and will
again this time. (BTW if anyone here can point me to the open transparent
processes via which ISOC, ICANN and other technical community nominations to
this or last round of MAG were made, I'd be very interested to have a look!)

An alternative of course to the current lobbying by all parties to increase
their share of the spoils is to have three strict divisions, three official
forums, and then insist that ISOC ICANN and the like nominate via one or the
other. They of course would not be happy with this. Nor should they. The
ISOC representation might be debatable if we have nothing better to do, but
RIR representation and ICANN representation to me should be a given.

As agreed earlier by this Caucus after the last round of discussions on
this,

"We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards
should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
should not be at the expense of civil society participation".

That I believe was the intention of those NomCom people who advocated this
position. As stated in the report, not everyone agreed. Now its up to the
Caucus to determine whether it wants to adopt a policy position here.


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: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> Sent: 25 May 2008 23:50
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> At 05:41 p.m. 23/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> > >
> > > Your email goes directly to the key point. You
> > > are deffending the idea that it is impossible to
> > > set up formal nomination process due to the fact
> > > that some part of the community would not be
> > > represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.
> >
> >That was not the exact point I was making, but it is one worth making. A
> >discussion of that point would be more productive than an attack on the
> >Nomcom report.
> 
> Of course. In fact I am not interested in
> attacking the Nomcom report, but discussing the concepts behind their
> behavior.
> My point is that it is impossible to set up
> formal election mechanism base in the strict
> classification in 3 stakeholders group if later
> some organizartions/people are out of that classification.
> 
> 
> > > Other important things is that you remark the
> > > fact that this caucus nominates people to
> > > represent strictly the caucus itself, what is
> > > another very frank statement that avoid any
> > > intention of representing a broader community than the own caucus.
> >
> >Yes, that was indeed my main point. Our nominations reflect IGC
> >preferences. We lack the institutional capacity to claim that those
> >preferences represent the whole of "civil society" on a global scale.
> >But at least we are an open, CS caucus.
> 
> The list is open, no doubt. There is a doubt
> about the openess of the caucus, since the nomcom
> has taken some criteria that exclude people from the list.
> I don't think that this is unfair, but it is
> necessary to define better what this caucus is.
> The caucus seems to be: all of those that
> consider themselves as civil society
> organizations or people except those that work for ........
> This is at least a not clear criteria.
> 
> 
> >  Just like the RIRs claim to
> >represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
> >because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
> >portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
> >processes.
> 
> You are wrong on this point. The RIRs don't claim
> in anyway to represent the Internet community.
> Speaking for LACNIC, this is very very far from
> our view. If you find any document in our website
> that say somethink like that or let anybody to
> intepret that, please advice me because we have to change it immediately.
> I have to say that I have never heard that the
> RIRs are representatives of the Internet Community.
> 
> 
> ><this section moved>
> >
> > > The discussion about the existence of 3, 4 or 5
> > > stakeholders groups is, in my opinion, not very
> > > important while we ensure that the IGF
> > > Secretariat take care of the multiples
> > > necessaries balances in their recommendations and
> > > the UN Secretary General take care of the same
> > > things at the time of taking decisions about the
> > > MAG composition.
> >
> >I myself would prefer to have a truly bottom-up representational
> >process, rather than a top-down process in which people lobby the
> >Secretariat and UN S-G to make sure they are represented. It seems to me
> >that the lobbying process would only favor stronger economic vested
> >interests.
> 
> The discussion in this list is demonstrating that
> it is impossible. Who should appoint people on
> representation of CS? this list? it represents
> very partially the interests of the CSO. Regional
> caucuses? it would be a much better approach, it
> would be much more representative of the reality.
> The regional caucus, at least in LAC region, has
> proven to have a very different criteria for
> selecting their candidates to the MAG than the IGC.
> But anyway many people could still claim for not
> being represented trought such system.
> 
> How many stakeholders group would we need?
> because there is a strong opposition to revisit
> this issue while it is clear that the strict 3
> groups definition leave many people in a confussing situation.
> 
> 
> > >  It doesn't matter if the
> > > academic community is a stakeholder or not if we
> > > are confident that there will be people from this
> > > community in the MAG, same happen with many other
> > > organizations and inteests' groups.
> >
> >True, but how can I be confident that the representative of "academia"
> >chosen by a remote Secretariat or SG will represent academics who are
> >engaged and informed about internet governance? One can find academics
> >on any side of a policy issue. It would not make me happy, e.g., to put
> >Professor John Yoo on the MAG.** How can an "academic" be held
> >accountable if his or her appointment came from the top and not from
> >cultivating political support on the bottom? Isn't it possible that
> >powerful interest groups would lobby the UN SG and others to put their
> >pet academics on and to exclude more critical ones?
> 
> Mmmm. It would not happen since the IGF Sec is
> under a big public scrutiny. But anyway you, and
> all of course, have to accept that there could be
> people from the same stakeholder group than you
> with very different views. The reality is much
> more diverse and complex that some would like.
> 
> 
> > > It is another key issue, because it is important
> > > to understand that there are multiple nomination
> > > channels, even for the same stakeholder group,
> > > and nominations like the  IGC recommendations is just one of them.
> >
> >Yes, so we seem to agree on the fact that IGC nominations are of limited
> >impact and that there are at the moment many other channels. And for the
> >time being, that is fine.
> >
> >But we do not agree on the more fundamental point: I would not be
> >satisfied with relying on the discretion of the UN SG or Secretariat
> >over the longer term. I would prefer to see a real bottom up
> >representational structure set up.
> 
> I have already demonstrated that it is impossible
> while other previous discussions are not solved before.
> 
> 
> >And perhaps we both agree that the composition of the MAG is not all
> >that important, as long as it is balanced.
> >
> >Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
> >and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of goals
> >and plans.
> 
> Maybe it is not a crazy idea.
> 
> 
> Raúl
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
> 3:51 PM

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Mon May 26 05:42:41 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Summary of session on participation of relevant
 stakeholders in the ITU activities...
Message-ID: <200805260942.m4Q9gajR005506@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Find attached the Power Point presentation which was given by Thomas
Schneider, Representative of Switzerland and Co-Chair of the ITU Council WG,
and Beatrice Pluchon from the ITU Secretariat

during the Information Session on ITU Open Consultation
<http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/>  on the participation of
all relevant stakeholders. This one hour session on last Wednesday was
limited to exchange information on the modalities of the on going written
consultation process in relation with the status of the negotiations within
the ITU Council WG on the Study on the Participation of all relevant
stakeholders in ITU Activities related to the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS). 

 

Deadline for WSIS accredited CS entities to answer the On
<http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/openconsultation2008/index.h
tml>  Line questionnaire is 15 June 2008. 

 

This WG has to deliver a report of existing modalities and propose new
modalities for stakeholders’ participation in the ITU. The report would be
presented to the next Plenipot’ Conference which will then decide whether
any action should be taken. Therefore the WG report has to be ready by the
ITU Council by 2009.

 

The answers to the On
<http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/openconsultation2008/index.h
tml>  Line questionnaire will be made available as such to Members of the WG
only, and the ITU Secretariat will compile a synthesis / summary on the
basis of the answers. 

 

There are two relevant documents previously compiled by the ITU Secretariat
that could be read before answering the questionnaire:

 

-
<http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/September/
WG-Study-02-08-secretariat-ITU-existing-practices2-final.doc>
WG-Study/2/08*: Secretariat Background Paper on existing practices within
ITU for the participation of relevant stakeholders in the activities of the
Union.

 

-
<http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/January/WG
-Study-04-02-rev.2secretariat-UN-report-final.doc> WG-Study/4/02, Rev.2*:
Secretariat Background Paper on the analysis of existing mechanisms and
practices for stakeholder participation in the United Nations, other
specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations.

 

The attached Powerpoint includes some information on the timeline of the
activities of the WG and some insights on the Draft structure of the final
report of the WG. 

 

Since the WG is only working in English, answers to the questionnaire are
advised to be provided in English – in order to have them actually impacting
on the WG members. 

 

It was also stressed that some interim measures have been taken to
facilitate CS access to ITU processes and ITU information (i.e.: ITU-T
making its recommendations publicly available) and that there are
suggestions on how to make best use of these existing modalities. 

 

Best, 

 

Philippe

 

  _____  

De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] 
Envoyé : mardi 20 mai 2008 17:19
À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc : 'Philippe Dam'; congo at ngocongo.org
Objet : Infomration session - 21 May, 1.00 pm - participation of relevant
stakeholders in the ITU activities...

 

Dear all, 

 

This to remind you that the ITU Secretariat will hold an information session
on the on going consultation process on the issue of participation of
relevant stakeholders in the ITU activities related to WSIS. At the request
of the ITU WG working on this issue, a questionnaire open to all WSIS CS
accredited stakeholders has been circulated and deadline for answering this
questionnaire is 15 June 2008. 

 

The Information session, taking place tomorrow on 21 May (1.00-2.00 pm in
Room C2 at the ITU), will provide an opportunity for raising any question or
comment on this consultation process – and on the activities of the WG.

 

Note that CONGO would be happy to consider including in its answer to the
questionnaire some inputs from non-WSIS accredited CS entities who might be
interested in this issue.

 

Links:

 

-          ITU Council working on the study on the Participation of all
relevant stakeholders in ITU Activities related to WSIS:
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/.

 

-          On Line Questionnaire for all WSIS accredited entities:
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/openconsultation2008/index.ht
ml

 

-          Invitation to the 21 May information session on the open
consultation:
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/openconsultation2008/open-con
sultation-DM-08-1008-2.pdf 

 

The answers to this online questionnaire will be considered by the ITU WG at
its next meeting in September 2008. The Co-Chair of the Working Group will
be participating in this information session.

 

We will provide you with a complete summary of this session.

 

Best, 

 

Philippe Dam 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/5837e0d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wg-study.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 79360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/5837e0d6/attachment.ppt>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Mon May 26 05:50:28 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:50:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list-- Amateur, professional,
 mercenary semantics
In-Reply-To: <004501c8be81$5693e210$03bba630$@net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
	 <ec8caada0805241000t34f7ee35yeb463411c0567b6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8caada0805241107g4d0eabdeh6a003fb12a432633@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1211665564.48388c9c58b05@webmail.fundp.ac.be>
	 <AE646080-1235-4EBC-90AF-D0FD30A4D218@telus.net>
	 <00dd01c8be7f$c969b050$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
	 <004501c8be81$5693e210$03bba630$@net>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30805260250j39c312c7x8b7766f46d091a26@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

For once, I agree intoto with Suresh. He placed a rock solid argument
there. I hope ther should be no more beating about the bush.
Suresh, it was wll thought and, Kudos.0

Aaron

On 5/25/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> With actual, well defined professionals, there's no conflict of interest
> from advocating your party's line, or fighting for your party's cause.
> Advocacy for pay, or fight for pay mercenaries tend to engender far less
> trust, and far more contempt, for obvious reasons, starting with the entire
> "conflict of interest" thing and going on to how loyal to a particular cause
> such people can be in the long run.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:26 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Mercenaries on the list-- Amateur, professional,
> mercenary semantics
>
>
>
>
> Since in this discussion we are not talking about mercenaries as paid
> combatants in an armed conflict, what is the difference between a
> professional and a mercenary? In the best case scenario, isn't a
> professional someone who gets paid to do what they want to do anyway?
> Wouldn't we RATHER have professionals working with us?
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon May 26 06:11:02 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 03:11:02 -0700
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080526101102.GA29784@hserus.net>

Ian Peter [26/05/08 19:23 +1000]:
>If you acknowledge the reality of a fourth stakeholder in IGF, you can
>understand why some civil society members may not want part of its limited
>number of seats going to representatives of another group. So in fact this
>whole debate really reflects whether a fourth stakeholder group exists or
>does not exist - not some conspiracy to deny basic human rights on the
>grounds of employment as has been characterized.

Ian, I agree with what you say but the corollary is that there would be no
rhyme or reason for technical community people to caucus here.

And as I said, there are shared synergies to the two so that it is
pointless for one set to effectively alienate and exclude the other.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 06:53:13 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 20:53:13 +1000
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080526101102.GA29784@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <00b401c8bf1e$b414df50$8b00a8c0@IAN>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: 26 May 2008 20:11
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Cc: 'Raul Echeberria'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> Ian Peter [26/05/08 19:23 +1000]:
> >If you acknowledge the reality of a fourth stakeholder in IGF, you can
> >understand why some civil society members may not want part of its
> limited
> >number of seats going to representatives of another group. So in fact
> this
> >whole debate really reflects whether a fourth stakeholder group exists or
> >does not exist - not some conspiracy to deny basic human rights on the
> >grounds of employment as has been characterized.
> 
> Ian, I agree with what you say but the corollary is that there would be no
> rhyme or reason for technical community people to caucus here.

> 
> And as I said, there are shared synergies to the two so that it is
> pointless for one set to effectively alienate and exclude the other.


Or to try and represent the other. But there are plenty of reasons to talk,
because, as you say, the synergies exist and should be strengthened.  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon May 26 10:06:09 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:36:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805252359x6a7415cbs4f7b6b232f3fe033@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <f65fb55e0805230621m43001753v192ea58b02645d46@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>	 <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>	 <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>	 <f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com>	 <483A5BAC.5080400@itforchange.net> <f65fb55e0805252359x6a7415cbs4f7b6b232f3fe033@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483AC3D1.4020700@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/d8ddc217/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon May 26 10:06:37 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:36:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <011901c8bf00$0f4192c0$2dc4b840$@net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com> <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net> <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net> <011901c8bf00$0f4192c0$2dc4b840$@net>
Message-ID: <483AC3ED.20008@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/500e5408/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 10:10:02 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:10:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <20080526141002.GA16632@nic.fr>

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 09:05:14PM +0000,
 wcurrie at apc.org <wcurrie at apc.org> wrote 
 a message of 10 lines which said:

> Similarly the crude, broad brush stroke attacks on civil society
> participation in IG that Veni makes are unfortunate because they
> also reflect badly on the organisations like ICANN and ISOC that
> Veni purports to speak for. 

You can say one thing for Veni Markovski: he is faithful and
predictable. He was an obnoxious pitbull when working for ICANN and he
continues to do so afterwards.

> that someone like Veni is operating a 'swift boat' campaign
> apparently with the support of senior individuals in the internet
> technical community.

Be careful, there is no such thing as "the Internet technical
community". Internet technicians (the sort of people you can find at
RIPE, AFNOG, NANOG, IETF, W3C, in many places but ICANN) are as
divided as the rest of the Internet users, as different in political
opinions, and they certainly are not a group or a community.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Mon May 26 10:55:56 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:55:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com> <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net> <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <6E37E084-75A6-481F-8E24-F3BEA51EC99A@privaterra.info>



On 26-May-08, at 2:59 AM, Guru wrote:

> Suresh
>
> Repeatedly on this list, I (and Parminder and others) have sought  
> the definition of the 'technical community'. This term is being used  
> ambiguously to reflect two different ideas:

There was a long discussion about who was in or not the "technical  
community" @ WSIS - Phase II, prepcom 2. Feb 05, if i'm not mistaken.

Would suggest people review the discussions that took place at that time

regards

Robert


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/2d2a65e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From lists at privaterra.info  Mon May 26 11:07:30 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:07:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion off
 the agenda ... ?
Message-ID: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info>


As many of you may know,  ICANN has recently announced that Cairo has  
been selected to host its 33rd International Public Meeting <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17may08.htm 
 >

Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) published a public statement  
the other day in which he and other congressional representatives seem  
to indicate that ICANN promotes free speech principles. However recent  
comments by members of the ICANN at-large advisory committee as well  
as members of  ICANN staff seem to indicate that issues of freedom of  
expression, censorship and internet freedom is NOT of concern to ICANN.

ref - http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3342&Itemid=125

Perhaps what is needed is that internet users start an advocacy  
campaign to make it clear to ICANN and its at-large advisory committee  
that Internet Freedom is not optional - but a right of that should be  
promoted and included as a core organizational value.

regards

Robert
---
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Mon May 26 11:17:21 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:17:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>

Hi all
This seems a little skewed.
 From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues 
are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others, but rather it 
is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and focus.
This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's technical remit.
Jacqueline A. Morris

Robert Guerra wrote:
>
> As many of you may know,  ICANN has recently announced that Cairo has 
> been selected to host its 33rd International Public Meeting 
> <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17may08.htm>
>
> Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) published a public statement 
> the other day in which he and other congressional representatives seem 
> to indicate that ICANN promotes free speech principles. However recent 
> comments by members of the ICANN at-large advisory committee as well 
> as members of  ICANN staff seem to indicate that issues of freedom of 
> expression, censorship and internet freedom is NOT of concern to ICANN.
>
> ref - 
> http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3342&Itemid=125 
>
>
> Perhaps what is needed is that internet users start an advocacy 
> campaign to make it clear to ICANN and its at-large advisory committee 
> that Internet Freedom is not optional - but a right of that should be 
> promoted and included as a core organizational value.
>
> regards
>
> Robert
> ---
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 11:17:45 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:17:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080526141002.GA16632@nic.fr>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080526141002.GA16632@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <3B8F7610-5B60-4A44-A4D7-02147F686790@psg.com>


On 26 May 2008, at 10:10, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> He was
                   ...
>                     when working for ICANN


as far as i know he still does work for ICANN:

from: http://www.icann.org/general/staff.html

Global Partnership, Regional Liaison for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,  
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan,  
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

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 raul at lacnic.net  Mon May 26 11:27:01 2008
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:27:01 -0300
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
 <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>


Ian:

Thank you very much for your comment. In general 
terms we are in agreement. This is the kind of 
discussion that I tried to promote.
The problem is not if somebody can or can not be 
nominated on behalf of a given group. It is only 
anecdotic, the most important is to be clear in 
what is each group and be consistent with those 
definitions. And it is important also that anyone 
be clear in what channels should go trough for 
being represented or being elected for a position 
like the MAG. So, if we say: you are not from 
here, we have to accept (as you did, thank you) 
that there should be also channels for that people.

There are still many people that prefer to keep 
the classification in 3 stakeholders group. In 
that case we have o let anybody to decide to which group they feel closer.
Maybe some people in the so called "technical 
community" feel closer from the business sector, 
and others, like me feels part of civil society organizations space.

Said, that, and also for clarifying something, I 
was appointed to the WGIG with the support of 
civil society organizations, and now I have 
received an important support form civil society 
organizations from LAC region to continue serving 
in the MAG and this is, I guess, because a great 
involvement of LACNIC and myself in civil society 
activities in the LAC region. As I said before, 
the reality usually is more complex than some would like.
But the most important is that I agree almost 100 % with your email.

Raúl



At 06:23 a.m. 26/05/2008, Ian Peter wrote:
>Raul wrote (and I agree)
>
> >My point is that it is impossible to set up formal election mechanism base
> >in the strict classification in 3 stakeholders group if later some
> >organizartions/people are out of that classification.
>
>
>Agreed! Rather we should acknowledge that there really are four
>classifications, and the technical community is a stakeholder in itself. I
>don't think that is going to change this time around, and it certainly was a
>consideration in first round MAG appointments. A case in point being your
>own appointment Raul - to me absolutely worthy and I hope you are
>re-appointed - but your nomination did not come from this civil society
>list. Nor did those of the ISOC, ICANN, and other technical community reps
>on the MAG).
>
>
>If you acknowledge the reality of a fourth stakeholder in IGF, you can
>understand why some civil society members may not want part of its limited
>number of seats going to representatives of another group. So in fact this
>whole debate really reflects whether a fourth stakeholder group exists or
>does not exist - not some conspiracy to deny basic human rights on the
>grounds of employment as has been characterized.
>
>Looks to me from MAG representation and documentation from IGF meetings that
>the fourth group does exist, has nominated candidates in the past, and will
>again this time. (BTW if anyone here can point me to the open transparent
>processes via which ISOC, ICANN and other technical community nominations to
>this or last round of MAG were made, I'd be very interested to have a look!)
>
>An alternative of course to the current lobbying by all parties to increase
>their share of the spoils is to have three strict divisions, three official
>forums, and then insist that ISOC ICANN and the like nominate via one or the
>other. They of course would not be happy with this. Nor should they. The
>ISOC representation might be debatable if we have nothing better to do, but
>RIR representation and ICANN representation to me should be a given.
>
>As agreed earlier by this Caucus after the last round of discussions on
>this,
>
>"We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
>administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards
>should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
>should not be at the expense of civil society participation".
>
>That I believe was the intention of those NomCom people who advocated this
>position. As stated in the report, not everyone agreed. Now its up to the
>Caucus to determine whether it wants to adopt a policy position here.
>
>
>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: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> > Sent: 25 May 2008 23:50
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
> >
> > At 05:41 p.m. 23/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> > > >
> > > > Your email goes directly to the key point. You
> > > > are deffending the idea that it is impossible to
> > > > set up formal nomination process due to the fact
> > > > that some part of the community would not be
> > > > represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.
> > >
> > >That was not the exact point I was making, but it is one worth making. A
> > >discussion of that point would be more productive than an attack on the
> > >Nomcom report.
> >
> > Of course. In fact I am not interested in
> > attacking the Nomcom report, but discussing the concepts behind their
> > behavior.
> > My point is that it is impossible to set up
> > formal election mechanism base in the strict
> > classification in 3 stakeholders group if later
> > some organizartions/people are out of that classification.
> >
> >
> > > > Other important things is that you remark the
> > > > fact that this caucus nominates people to
> > > > represent strictly the caucus itself, what is
> > > > another very frank statement that avoid any
> > > > intention of representing a broader community than the own caucus.
> > >
> > >Yes, that was indeed my main point. Our nominations reflect IGC
> > >preferences. We lack the institutional capacity to claim that those
> > >preferences represent the whole of "civil society" on a global scale.
> > >But at least we are an open, CS caucus.
> >
> > The list is open, no doubt. There is a doubt
> > about the openess of the caucus, since the nomcom
> > has taken some criteria that exclude people from the list.
> > I don't think that this is unfair, but it is
> > necessary to define better what this caucus is.
> > The caucus seems to be: all of those that
> > consider themselves as civil society
> > organizations or people except those that work for ........
> > This is at least a not clear criteria.
> >
> >
> > >  Just like the RIRs claim to
> > >represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
> > >because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
> > >portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
> > >processes.
> >
> > You are wrong on this point. The RIRs don't claim
> > in anyway to represent the Internet community.
> > Speaking for LACNIC, this is very very far from
> > our view. If you find any document in our website
> > that say somethink like that or let anybody to
> > intepret that, please advice me because we have to change it immediately.
> > I have to say that I have never heard that the
> > RIRs are representatives of the Internet Community.
> >
> >
> > ><this section moved>
> > >
> > > > The discussion about the existence of 3, 4 or 5
> > > > stakeholders groups is, in my opinion, not very
> > > > important while we ensure that the IGF
> > > > Secretariat take care of the multiples
> > > > necessaries balances in their recommendations and
> > > > the UN Secretary General take care of the same
> > > > things at the time of taking decisions about the
> > > > MAG composition.
> > >
> > >I myself would prefer to have a truly bottom-up representational
> > >process, rather than a top-down process in which people lobby the
> > >Secretariat and UN S-G to make sure they are represented. It seems to me
> > >that the lobbying process would only favor stronger economic vested
> > >interests.
> >
> > The discussion in this list is demonstrating that
> > it is impossible. Who should appoint people on
> > representation of CS? this list? it represents
> > very partially the interests of the CSO. Regional
> > caucuses? it would be a much better approach, it
> > would be much more representative of the reality.
> > The regional caucus, at least in LAC region, has
> > proven to have a very different criteria for
> > selecting their candidates to the MAG than the IGC.
> > But anyway many people could still claim for not
> > being represented trought such system.
> >
> > How many stakeholders group would we need?
> > because there is a strong opposition to revisit
> > this issue while it is clear that the strict 3
> > groups definition leave many people in a confussing situation.
> >
> >
> > > >  It doesn't matter if the
> > > > academic community is a stakeholder or not if we
> > > > are confident that there will be people from this
> > > > community in the MAG, same happen with many other
> > > > organizations and inteests' groups.
> > >
> > >True, but how can I be confident that the representative of "academia"
> > >chosen by a remote Secretariat or SG will represent academics who are
> > >engaged and informed about internet governance? One can find academics
> > >on any side of a policy issue. It would not make me happy, e.g., to put
> > >Professor John Yoo on the MAG.** How can an "academic" be held
> > >accountable if his or her appointment came from the top and not from
> > >cultivating political support on the bottom? Isn't it possible that
> > >powerful interest groups would lobby the UN SG and others to put their
> > >pet academics on and to exclude more critical ones?
> >
> > Mmmm. It would not happen since the IGF Sec is
> > under a big public scrutiny. But anyway you, and
> > all of course, have to accept that there could be
> > people from the same stakeholder group than you
> > with very different views. The reality is much
> > more diverse and complex that some would like.
> >
> >
> > > > It is another key issue, because it is important
> > > > to understand that there are multiple nomination
> > > > channels, even for the same stakeholder group,
> > > > and nominations like the  IGC recommendations is just one of them.
> > >
> > >Yes, so we seem to agree on the fact that IGC nominations are of limited
> > >impact and that there are at the moment many other channels. And for the
> > >time being, that is fine.
> > >
> > >But we do not agree on the more fundamental point: I would not be
> > >satisfied with relying on the discretion of the UN SG or Secretariat
> > >over the longer term. I would prefer to see a real bottom up
> > >representational structure set up.
> >
> > I have already demonstrated that it is impossible
> > while other previous discussions are not solved before.
> >
> >
> > >And perhaps we both agree that the composition of the MAG is not all
> > >that important, as long as it is balanced.
> > >
> > >Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
> > >and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of goals
> > >and plans.
> >
> > Maybe it is not a crazy idea.
> >
> >
> > Raúl
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
> > 3:51 PM
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1466 
>- Release Date: 25/05/2008 06:49 p.m.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 11:40:05 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:40:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <3B8F7610-5B60-4A44-A4D7-02147F686790@psg.com>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080526141002.GA16632@nic.fr> <3B8F7610-5B60-4A44-A4D7-02147F686790@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
> 
> as far as i know [Veni] still does work for ICANN:
> from: http://www.icann.org/general/staff.html
> 

Which makes it all the more interesting that he has picked up this idea
of a "professional class" and tries to use it to discredit others.
Perhaps he is warning us about himself?

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Mon May 26 11:42:31 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
 off the agenda ... ?
In-Reply-To: <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>
Message-ID: <52814DCC-A508-4436-8733-3EA726BEE9C9@privaterra.info>


On 26-May-08, at 11:17 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's technical  
> remit.


Well, if we go by ICANN's bylaws....

http://icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XI

4. At-Large Advisory Committee


4a. The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to  
consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as  
they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.

- Individual internet users in Egypt are active online (see refs  
below). Recent media reports seem to indicate that  issues of freedom  
of expression online and censorship are of concern to Internet users  
in Egypt.

Ref -
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/-/world/middle-east-north-africa/egypt/

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/05/16/egypt-torture-for-bloggers-and-activists/
Egyptian bloggers, cyberactivists and activists on the ground continue  
to pay the price for speaking up...

Egyptians Take One Step Toward Change, One Step Back
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2108

Egypt's Facebook Revolution
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/05/egypts_facebook_revolution.html


I don't want people to complain - after the fact - and given the  
issues that "might" arise, I think it prudent to raise the issues well  
in advance of the meeting taking place. Is it not within "scope" and  
"mission" to seek assurances from  ICANN and the organizers of the  
meeting  that the standard practice of allowing for "open  
registration" and technical  specifications in the Meetings RFP (see  
below) in regards to connectivity be met ?


regards

Robert
--
Ref:

http://icann.org/meetings/rfp/rfp-2007.htm

IV. Basic Requirements the Local Host Must Meet

Please note that these elements are required to hold a successful  
meeting and are not simply recommendations. If the local host finds a  
need to modify these arrangements, the changes must be approved by  
ICANN in advance of the meeting.

[snipped]


B. Network Infrastructure

Due to the nature of the conference and its attendees the Network  
infrastructure is an essential and critical aspect of the meeting.  
Attendees MUST be able to reliably send and receive both encrypted and  
unencrypted data freely. The importance of adequate and reliable  
systems cannot be expressed enough. The network must be fully  
operational from Day 0 until Day 8. The following information has been  
included to assist the ICANN meeting staff in the solicitation of  
offers from IT vendors.

Bandwidth and Internet Requirements:

  1. BANDWIDTH: External bandwidth (Internet Transit) must be in the  
form of dedicated circuits of at least 10mbps capacity and must  
include redundant paths. Preference may be given to proposals that  
contain higher capacity and more detailed redundancy planning.
  2. ADDRESSING: At least a /22 (1024 addresses) of publicly routable  
IPv4 address space must be made available for use during the  
conference. Using RFC1918 space and/or NAT (Network Address  
Translation) has been known to cause problems and is strongly  
discouraged. However, if using RFC1918 or NAT space is the only way to  
facilitate our technical requirements, then a letter explaining IN  
DETAIL the issue/solution is mandatory and must be approved by the  
ICANN Technical Staff prior to the proposal being accepted.
  3. ADDRESSING: Though not required, offering IPv6 addresses to the  
conference attendees IN ADDITION to the required IPv4 address space  
would be desired. Preference may be given to proposals that offer both  
addressing solutions.
  4. ROUTING: The conference routers/gateways must be configured with  
a minimum of filters so as not to affect tunnelling software used by  
the conference attendees. Only filters that are required to protect  
the network must be in place. ICANN reserves the right to approve or  
disapprove any filters used at the conference. Any known filtering  
that will occur at the meeting should be described in your proposal.
  5. SERVICE LEVEL: Access to high-level support by the transit  
provider must be available 24 hours a day for the duration of the  
conference by the local host support staff. Troubleshooting transit  
and bandwidth issues often takes place at odd times so as to not  
impact the conference.

Local Infrastructure Requirements:

  1. DIAGRAM: In order to be considered to provide technical service  
to the ICANN meeting, the IT vendor must provide a diagram (JPG or  
PDF) to the ICANN technical staff detailing the local infrastructure  
of the meeting. This is to include the switched network, the wireless  
network, and core infrastructure (servers) that will make up the local  
infrastructure.
  2. DHCP: All addressing of the attendees hosts must be accomplished  
through DHCP. All DHCP server(s) must reside within the local  
infrastructure.
  3. RESERVED IP: A small range of IP addresses (32 addresses) must  
remain available to make static assignments hosts if necessary. This  
would include any servers, printers and/or any other host (to be  
determined by ICANN technical staff)
  4. SMTP: An SMTP server is required to allow the conference  
attendees to send email. Email relay must be allowed from the IP  
address range(s) of the conference and an IP range further specified  
by the ICANN staff.
  5. DNS: At least two recursive (caching) DNS servers must be  
available. At least one of these servers must reside WITHIN the local  
infrastructure. The other may reside at the transit provider(s) but  
must be topologically close to the conference network. Reverse  
delegation (in-addr.arpa) must be used on the network block(s) being  
used at the meeting.
  6. WIRELESS: 802.11(b and/or g) must be available throughout the  
meeting venue. This includes the main meeting room, board and staff  
workrooms, smaller meeting rooms, "Internet Café"/terminal room,  
common areas, hotel lobby and bar, etc. Where possible, wireless or  
high-speed wired access should be offered in guest rooms.
  7. WIRELESS: The SSID of the conference MUST be: ICANN and MUST NOT  
be WEP/WPA enabled.
  8. MONITORING: Monitoring of traffic MUST be restricted to ONLY that  
necessary for network maintenance and diagnostics. Any monitoring  
tools MUST be made available upon request.
  9. PROXY: ICANN requires that the IT vendor NOT use proxies in any  
form. If you feel that you are unable to provide services without  
using a proxy, please send a detailed explanation during the vendor  
selection process. ICANN MUST approve of the use of proxies. If the  
local host is aware that proxies are required in their locale, ICANN  
must be notified during the proposal process.
10. HARDWARE: Replaceable backups of critical services hardware should  
be standing by (DHCP, DNS, SMTP, etc). The ability to replace critical  
equipment within one hour of the problem being detected is required.
11. SERVICE LEVEL: The local hosts shall provide adequate qualified  
staffing for the setup, running and teardown of the network  
infrastructure. A technical representative MUST be onsite from 7am-9pm  
daily. IF a problem arises there MUST be a representative that can be  
contacted immediately and be onsite within 30 minutes of the  
initiation of the phone call during hours outside of those stated above.
12. INFRASTRUCTURE: Keep it simple. Keeping the network infrastructure  
as a simple, straightforward network increases the probability of  
network uptime and reliance.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 11:44:12 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 08:44:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080526141002.GA16632@nic.fr> <3B8F7610-5B60-4A44-A4D7-02147F686790@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080526154412.GA3356@hserus.net>

Milton L Mueller [26/05/08 11:40 -0400]:
>Which makes it all the more interesting that he has picked up this idea
>of a "professional class" and tries to use it to discredit others.
>Perhaps he is warning us about himself?

Congratulations on breaking your own record for catty commentary.

My late grandmother had this old saying about how someone with jaundice
always thinks the world around him is yellow .. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 11:43:48 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:43:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>


On 26 May 2008, at 11:27, Raul Echeberria wrote:

> There are still many people that prefer to keep the classification  
> in 3 stakeholders group.


and it is those people who make the rules.  we don't get to decide how  
many stakeholder groups there are in things that derive from the WSIS  
decisions.  we can argue for change, but we alone do not make the rules.

the WSIS Tunis Agenda defined 3 groups plus 2 cross-cutting groups.   
so within this environment we seem to be stuck with 3 stakeholder  
groups and 2 cross-cutting groups.

btw, in another thread someone asked for a definition of the Internet  
technical Community.  in addition to what i have written abut it  
before i define it as:

those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a partially  
coordinated manner, intended to insure the technical integrity and  
technical development of the Internet.

the term can also be applied to those individuals, whether they come  
from government, business or civil society who devote their lives to  
the cause of Internet technical integrity and technical development  
and who work with or for these organizations.  yes, i see this as  
somewhat problematic and at the time of WSIS argued for a 4th house -  
the Internet Technical Community.  but as history shows, this was  
rejected and thus we, pragmatically, need to live with what we've got  
until  the ground rules change.

and I agree with Raul when he says:

> In that case we have o let anybody to decide to which group they  
> feel closer.
> Maybe some people in the so called "technical community" feel closer  
> from the business sector, and others, like me feels part of civil  
> society organizations space.


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 May 26 11:48:06 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:48:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] 
> 
> Hi all
> This seems a little skewed.
> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues 
> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others, 
> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
focus.

Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs. 
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf 
And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs. 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ 

Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
remit." 

> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's 
> technical remit.

The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
that has been decisively refuted countless times. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon May 26 12:08:08 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:38:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
Message-ID: <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/ea403d03/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Mon May 26 12:18:34 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:18:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <52814DCC-A508-4436-8733-3EA726BEE9C9@privaterra.info>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com> <52814DCC-A508-4436-8733-3EA726BEE9C9@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <483AE2DA.90704@jacquelinemorris.com>


Depends on what you take  "ICANN's activities" to mean.
My personal opinion is mine, and not the issue here.

Rather, I wanted to clear up any misconception that the discussion 
referred to  indicated a lack of CONCERN about freedom of expression and 
access to the Internet, because no-one indicated that, but rather the 
disagreement with your position reflected a concern that the issue was 
outside ICANN's focus.
Whether it is outside the remit or not is up for discussion, and we may 
agree or disagree on it, but it is unfair to the people who were not in 
agreement with your position to misrepressent their views and say they 
were not concerned about censorship and repression in Egypt.

Jacqueline

Robert Guerra wrote:
>
> On 26-May-08, at 11:17 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>
>> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's technical 
>> remit.
>
>
> Well, if we go by ICANN's bylaws....
>
> http://icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XI
>
> 4. At-Large Advisory Committee
>
>
> 4a. The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to 
> consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as 
> they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.
>
> - Individual internet users in Egypt are active online (see refs 
> below). Recent media reports seem to indicate that  issues of freedom 
> of expression online and censorship are of concern to Internet users 
> in Egypt.
>
> Ref -
> http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/-/world/middle-east-north-africa/egypt/
>
> http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/05/16/egypt-torture-for-bloggers-and-activists/ 
>
> Egyptian bloggers, cyberactivists and activists on the ground continue 
> to pay the price for speaking up...
>
> Egyptians Take One Step Toward Change, One Step Back
> http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2108
>
> Egypt's Facebook Revolution
> http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/05/egypts_facebook_revolution.html 
>
>
>
> I don't want people to complain - after the fact - and given the 
> issues that "might" arise, I think it prudent to raise the issues well 
> in advance of the meeting taking place. Is it not within "scope" and 
> "mission" to seek assurances from  ICANN and the organizers of the 
> meeting  that the standard practice of allowing for "open 
> registration" and technical  specifications in the Meetings RFP (see 
> below) in regards to connectivity be met ?
>
>
> regards
>
> Robert
> -- 
> Ref:
>
> http://icann.org/meetings/rfp/rfp-2007.htm
>
> IV. Basic Requirements the Local Host Must Meet
>
> Please note that these elements are required to hold a successful 
> meeting and are not simply recommendations. If the local host finds a 
> need to modify these arrangements, the changes must be approved by 
> ICANN in advance of the meeting.
>
> [snipped]
>
>
> B. Network Infrastructure
>
> Due to the nature of the conference and its attendees the Network 
> infrastructure is an essential and critical aspect of the meeting. 
> Attendees MUST be able to reliably send and receive both encrypted and 
> unencrypted data freely. The importance of adequate and reliable 
> systems cannot be expressed enough. The network must be fully 
> operational from Day 0 until Day 8. The following information has been 
> included to assist the ICANN meeting staff in the solicitation of 
> offers from IT vendors.
>
> Bandwidth and Internet Requirements:
>
>  1. BANDWIDTH: External bandwidth (Internet Transit) must be in the 
> form of dedicated circuits of at least 10mbps capacity and must 
> include redundant paths. Preference may be given to proposals that 
> contain higher capacity and more detailed redundancy planning.
>  2. ADDRESSING: At least a /22 (1024 addresses) of publicly routable 
> IPv4 address space must be made available for use during the 
> conference. Using RFC1918 space and/or NAT (Network Address 
> Translation) has been known to cause problems and is strongly 
> discouraged. However, if using RFC1918 or NAT space is the only way to 
> facilitate our technical requirements, then a letter explaining IN 
> DETAIL the issue/solution is mandatory and must be approved by the 
> ICANN Technical Staff prior to the proposal being accepted.
>  3. ADDRESSING: Though not required, offering IPv6 addresses to the 
> conference attendees IN ADDITION to the required IPv4 address space 
> would be desired. Preference may be given to proposals that offer both 
> addressing solutions.
>  4. ROUTING: The conference routers/gateways must be configured with a 
> minimum of filters so as not to affect tunnelling software used by the 
> conference attendees. Only filters that are required to protect the 
> network must be in place. ICANN reserves the right to approve or 
> disapprove any filters used at the conference. Any known filtering 
> that will occur at the meeting should be described in your proposal.
>  5. SERVICE LEVEL: Access to high-level support by the transit 
> provider must be available 24 hours a day for the duration of the 
> conference by the local host support staff. Troubleshooting transit 
> and bandwidth issues often takes place at odd times so as to not 
> impact the conference.
>
> Local Infrastructure Requirements:
>
>  1. DIAGRAM: In order to be considered to provide technical service to 
> the ICANN meeting, the IT vendor must provide a diagram (JPG or PDF) 
> to the ICANN technical staff detailing the local infrastructure of the 
> meeting. This is to include the switched network, the wireless 
> network, and core infrastructure (servers) that will make up the local 
> infrastructure.
>  2. DHCP: All addressing of the attendees hosts must be accomplished 
> through DHCP. All DHCP server(s) must reside within the local 
> infrastructure.
>  3. RESERVED IP: A small range of IP addresses (32 addresses) must 
> remain available to make static assignments hosts if necessary. This 
> would include any servers, printers and/or any other host (to be 
> determined by ICANN technical staff)
>  4. SMTP: An SMTP server is required to allow the conference attendees 
> to send email. Email relay must be allowed from the IP address 
> range(s) of the conference and an IP range further specified by the 
> ICANN staff.
>  5. DNS: At least two recursive (caching) DNS servers must be 
> available. At least one of these servers must reside WITHIN the local 
> infrastructure. The other may reside at the transit provider(s) but 
> must be topologically close to the conference network. Reverse 
> delegation (in-addr.arpa) must be used on the network block(s) being 
> used at the meeting.
>  6. WIRELESS: 802.11(b and/or g) must be available throughout the 
> meeting venue. This includes the main meeting room, board and staff 
> workrooms, smaller meeting rooms, "Internet Café"/terminal room, 
> common areas, hotel lobby and bar, etc. Where possible, wireless or 
> high-speed wired access should be offered in guest rooms.
>  7. WIRELESS: The SSID of the conference MUST be: ICANN and MUST NOT 
> be WEP/WPA enabled.
>  8. MONITORING: Monitoring of traffic MUST be restricted to ONLY that 
> necessary for network maintenance and diagnostics. Any monitoring 
> tools MUST be made available upon request.
>  9. PROXY: ICANN requires that the IT vendor NOT use proxies in any 
> form. If you feel that you are unable to provide services without 
> using a proxy, please send a detailed explanation during the vendor 
> selection process. ICANN MUST approve of the use of proxies. If the 
> local host is aware that proxies are required in their locale, ICANN 
> must be notified during the proposal process.
> 10. HARDWARE: Replaceable backups of critical services hardware should 
> be standing by (DHCP, DNS, SMTP, etc). The ability to replace critical 
> equipment within one hour of the problem being detected is required.
> 11. SERVICE LEVEL: The local hosts shall provide adequate qualified 
> staffing for the setup, running and teardown of the network 
> infrastructure. A technical representative MUST be onsite from 7am-9pm 
> daily. IF a problem arises there MUST be a representative that can be 
> contacted immediately and be onsite within 30 minutes of the 
> initiation of the phone call during hours outside of those stated above.
> 12. INFRASTRUCTURE: Keep it simple. Keeping the network infrastructure 
> as a simple, straightforward network increases the probability of 
> network uptime and reliance.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 12:17:56 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:17:56 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info>
 <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

BTW, 
 
in the recent IGF Consultations a representative from aother big country (not the US) has proposed that FOE should be discussed ONLY in the new Human Rights Council. The IGF should concentrate on "technical issues". 
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 17:48
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; Robert Guerra
Betreff: RE: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>
> Hi all
> This seems a little skewed.
> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues
> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others,
> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
focus.

Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs.
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf
And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/

Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
remit."

> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's
> technical remit.

The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
that has been decisively refuted countless times.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 12:20:08 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:50:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>

I will agree with Avri's definition 100%, and again submit that if some
PERSON has CS cred, he has CS cred, regardless of whatever organization
(private sector, intl org, " IAB"  etc) that he happens to work for.

 

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:38 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

 

Avri,

There is a serious problem when the same term is used to mean two different
things. It leads to a lot of confusion, when in an argument one person is
using one meaning and the other person, the second meaning.

Can we try and use two different terms for these two categories.

We could consistently use 

A. IAB (Internet Administration Bodies) for those "those _organizations_
that focus on work, often  in a partially coordinated manner, intended to
insure the technical integrity and technical development of the Internet." I
would add - 'and participate in the administration / governance of the
internet'. The IGC submission in the feb consultations clearly covered this
group when it stated that the participation of IABs in MAG should not be at
the cost of CS participation'

B. and use 'technical  experts' (i am sure better names are possible) for
individuals - these experts can belong to Govt or Business or CS groups (as
also suggested by Raul). 

Guru
ps- Still waiting from responses on this question from Suresh and McTim..


Avri Doria wrote: 


On 26 May 2008, at 11:27, Raul Echeberria wrote: 




There are still many people that prefer to keep the classification in 3
stakeholders group. 



and it is those people who make the rules.  we don't get to decide how many
stakeholder groups there are in things that derive from the WSIS decisions.
we can argue for change, but we alone do not make the rules. 

the WSIS Tunis Agenda defined 3 groups plus 2 cross-cutting groups.  so
within this environment we seem to be stuck with 3 stakeholder groups and 2
cross-cutting groups. 

btw, in another thread someone asked for a definition of the Internet
technical Community.  in addition to what i have written abut it before i
define it as: 

those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a partially coordinated
manner, intended to insure the technical integrity and technical development
of the Internet. 

the term can also be applied to those individuals, whether they come from
government, business or civil society who devote their lives to the cause of
Internet technical integrity and technical development and who work with or
for these organizations.  yes, i see this as somewhat problematic and at the
time of WSIS argued for a 4th house - the Internet Technical Community.  but
as history shows, this was rejected and thus we, pragmatically, need to live
with what we've got until  the ground rules change. 

and I agree with Raul when he says: 




In that case we have o let anybody to decide to which group they feel
closer. 
Maybe some people in the so called "technical community" feel closer from
the business sector, and others, like me feels part of civil society
organizations space. 



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 





-- 
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/66151bad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 12:23:35 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:53:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <483AC3ED.20008@itforchange.net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com> <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net> <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net> <011901c8bf00$0f4192c0$2dc4b840$@net> <483AC3ED.20008@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <01a301c8bf4c$da5173d0$8ef45b70$@net>

There is enough cross cutting between the two that any cited difference
would be contrived and artificial

 

I support Avri's definition combining the two

 

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 7:37 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Rui Correia'
Subject: Re: [governance] Mercenaries on the list

 

Suresh 

You have used the term technical community in your mail where you asserted
that Milton and Parminder want to keep the technical community out (which I
have said is a misrepresentation)

Can you please share your definition of this term 'technical community', so
that we cease to use it equivocally. (Mc Tim look forward to your definition
as well)

thanks,
Guru



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/d81a7772/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Mon May 26 12:25:48 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:25:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <483AE48C.2080704@jacquelinemorris.com>

this issue has been discussed for ages, is still being discussed and 
there are many people on either side. Both have loads of documents to 
back up their arguments. I'm not particularly interested in going back 
over this again. GAC has an opinion, gNSO has opinions on both sides, 
ALAC has opinions on both sides

The point of my email was that I thought that Robert's email 
misrepresented what was said by some of the people who were not in 
agreement with his position. I wanted to make it clear that they were 
not unconcerned about the issue, but rather thought it shoud be taken up 
at another forum. It's not nice to say that people aren't concerned 
about repression, torture and censorship when they never indicated any 
lack of concern about the issue.

Jacqueline

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] 
>>
>> Hi all
>> This seems a little skewed.
>> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues 
>> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others, 
>> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
>>     
> focus.
>
> Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs. 
> http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf 
> And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs. 
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ 
>
> Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
> position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
> reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
> remit." 
>
>   
>> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's 
>> technical remit.
>>     
>
> The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
> that has been decisively refuted countless times. 
>   


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 12:26:54 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:56:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080526141002.GA16632@nic.fr>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080526141002.GA16632@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <01ab01c8bf4d$50f32c40$f2d984c0$@net>

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> Be careful, there is no such thing as "the Internet technical
> community". Internet technicians (the sort of people you can find at

.. any more than there is a single entity called "civil society"

	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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Mon May 26 12:28:44 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:28:44 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <483AE53C.1050302@jacquelinemorris.com>

So we move to yet another forum...
Was the proposal approved?  Did it look like it was getting support?
Jacqueline
Kleinwächter wrote:
> BTW, 
>  
> in the recent IGF Consultations a representative from aother big country (not the US) has proposed that FOE should be discussed ONLY in the new Human Rights Council. The IGF should concentrate on "technical issues". 
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 17:48
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; Robert Guerra
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>>
>> Hi all
>> This seems a little skewed.
>> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues
>> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others,
>> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
>>     
> focus.
>
> Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs.
> http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf
> And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs.
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>
> Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
> position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
> reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
> remit."
>
>   
>> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's
>> technical remit.
>>     
>
> The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
> that has been decisively refuted countless times.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>   


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Mon May 26 12:32:57 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:32:57 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <483AE53C.1050302@jacquelinemorris.com>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <483AE53C.1050302@jacquelinemorris.com>
Message-ID: <19C5FBA4-D730-408C-8C1D-06282C90483D@privaterra.info>

it would indeed be grave if any discussions regarding rights & freedom  
of expression were removed from the IGF.

I would assume - i hope correctly - that the EU, US, Canada and other  
countries that supported the inclusion of rights as a key topic for  
the IGF to discuss did not concur with the proposal...

regards

Robert


On 26-May-08, at 12:28 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

> So we move to yet another forum...
> Was the proposal approved?  Did it look like it was getting support?
> Jacqueline
> Kleinwächter wrote:
>> BTW,  in the recent IGF Consultations a representative from aother  
>> big country (not the US) has proposed that FOE should be discussed  
>> ONLY in the new Human Rights Council. The IGF should concentrate on  
>> "technical issues".  wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>> Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 17:48
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; Robert Guerra
>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights  
>> discussion
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>> This seems a little skewed.
>>> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues
>>> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others,
>>> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
>>>
>> focus.
>>
>> Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs.
>> http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf
>> And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs.
>> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>>
>> Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
>> position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
>> reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a  
>> "technical
>> remit."
>>
>>
>>> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's
>>> technical remit.
>>>
>>
>> The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
>> that has been decisively refuted countless times.
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon May 26 12:39:48 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:09:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
Message-ID: <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/4db03d0d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 12:41:28 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:11:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>

1.       It is up to him to stand for election. And to declare any conflicts
of interest

2.       It is THEN up to the nomcomm to evaluate his statement of candidacy

3.       It is not, with all due respect, up to the nomcomm to apply a
blanket ban

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 10:10 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria'
Subject: Re: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

 

Suresh

Bertrand has been active member of IGC and as a CS person in WSIS. He is
currently member of GAC, representing Govt of France. Do you think that he
can also be nominated by IGC to MAG under CS quota?  

Guru

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: 

I will agree with Avri's definition 100%, and again submit that if some
PERSON has CS cred, he has CS cred, regardless of whatever organization
(private sector, intl org, " IAB"  etc) that he happens to work for.

 

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:38 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

 

Avri,

There is a serious problem when the same term is used to mean two different
things. It leads to a lot of confusion, when in an argument one person is
using one meaning and the other person, the second meaning.

Can we try and use two different terms for these two categories.

We could consistently use 

A. IAB (Internet Administration Bodies) for those "those _organizations_
that focus on work, often  in a partially coordinated manner, intended to
insure the technical integrity and technical development of the Internet." I
would add - 'and participate in the administration / governance of the
internet'. The IGC submission in the feb consultations clearly covered this
group when it stated that the participation of IABs in MAG should not be at
the cost of CS participation'

B. and use 'technical  experts' (i am sure better names are possible) for
individuals - these experts can belong to Govt or Business or CS groups (as
also suggested by Raul). 

Guru
ps- Still waiting from responses on this question from Suresh and McTim..


Avri Doria wrote: 


On 26 May 2008, at 11:27, Raul Echeberria wrote: 





There are still many people that prefer to keep the classification in 3
stakeholders group. 



and it is those people who make the rules.  we don't get to decide how many
stakeholder groups there are in things that derive from the WSIS decisions.
we can argue for change, but we alone do not make the rules. 

the WSIS Tunis Agenda defined 3 groups plus 2 cross-cutting groups.  so
within this environment we seem to be stuck with 3 stakeholder groups and 2
cross-cutting groups. 

btw, in another thread someone asked for a definition of the Internet
technical Community.  in addition to what i have written abut it before i
define it as: 

those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a partially coordinated
manner, intended to insure the technical integrity and technical development
of the Internet. 

the term can also be applied to those individuals, whether they come from
government, business or civil society who devote their lives to the cause of
Internet technical integrity and technical development and who work with or
for these organizations.  yes, i see this as somewhat problematic and at the
time of WSIS argued for a 4th house - the Internet Technical Community.  but
as history shows, this was rejected and thus we, pragmatically, need to live
with what we've got until  the ground rules change. 

and I agree with Raul when he says: 





In that case we have o let anybody to decide to which group they feel
closer. 
Maybe some people in the so called "technical community" feel closer from
the business sector, and others, like me feels part of civil society
organizations space. 



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 






-- 
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities





-- 
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/27209081/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 12:47:44 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:47:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <483AE2DA.90704@jacquelinemorris.com>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com> <52814DCC-A508-4436-8733-3EA726BEE9C9@privaterra.info> <483AE2DA.90704@jacquelinemorris.com>
Message-ID: <653C179B-3DA0-4E4E-8D9F-F4B3DC4B261E@internet.law.pro>

I believe in the power of making statements. I believe that making  
statements about what is right and just is both good in and of itself  
and sometimes has the power to create change for the better in the  
world.

The participants in ICANN ought to know that the presence of an ICANN  
meeting in a host country is used by many inside that country as a  
sign that they are doing something right. If Egypt, or any host  
country for that matter, is filtering Internet access or otherwise  
abusing its gateways to prevent or impair end-to-end communications  
between users of the world, that is something that, in my view, ought  
to be publicized and condemned. We ought not let the presence of an  
ICANN meeting be misused, by those who would deny Internet access to  
others, as a symbol that they are doing the right thing.

I don't know what the Internet in Egypt looks like, but I will  
certainly investigate that before the Cairo meeting. Certainly  
filtering is not an ICANN issue, but the celebration of the local  
Internet community always accompanies an ICANN meeting. While I  
wouldn't necessarily expect ICANN, as a corporation, to make any  
statements about the host community's Internet policies and practices  
on filtering, I would applaud ICANN _as a community_ for making a  
statement about what is right and just.

       -- 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 avri at psg.com  Mon May 26 12:49:37 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:49:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <97EDBC32-F1C0-4DBE-BBD6-F8CEAA241C27@psg.com>

Hi,

On 26 May 2008, at 12:08, Guru wrote:

> Avri,
>
> There is a serious problem when the same term is used to mean two  
> different things. It leads to a lot of confusion, when in an  
> argument one person is using one meaning and the other person, the  
> second meaning.

Well, overloading terminology can always be problematic, but it is not  
us who defines these names,  Internet Technical Community (ITC?) has  
been defined implicitly by others (though the TA only uses technical  
community, not Internet Technical Community).  Any of our explicit  
attempts at a definition are just our interpretations for the implicit  
meaning derived from common usage.

Also i do not think these definitions are any more problematic then  
the overloading of definitions for CS.  In this case, the individuals  
and their relationship to the organizations becomes rather clear.   
though of curse i do not think we can create an epxlicit list of ITC  
organization without lots of argument.

I would suggest we refer to Internet Technical Community organizations  
and ITC individuals if we really want to distinguish and regularize  
usage.

>
>
> Can we try and use two different terms for these two categories.
>
> We could consistently use
>
> A. IAB (Internet Administration Bodies)

However, IAB is already the name of another organization the Internet  
Architecture Board (http://www.iab.org/).  This might be a bit awkward  
in the overloading sense.


> for those "those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a  
> partially coordinated manner, intended to insure the technical  
> integrity and technical development of the Internet." I would add -  
> 'and participate in the administration / governance of the  
> internet'. The IGC submission in the feb consultations clearly  
> covered this group when it stated that the participation of IABs in  
> MAG should not be at the cost of CS participation'

As long as you use the working definition of Governance from the TA 34  
and use a technical interpretation of what:  shared principles, norms,  
rules, decision- making procedures, and programmes means, i do not see  
a problem in that.

>
>
> B. and use 'technical  experts' (i am sure better names are  
> possible) for individuals - these experts can belong to Govt or  
> Business or CS groups (as also suggested by Raul).

Well, that remove the notions of these people being a community.  Also  
then we could get in squabbling as to who was really an expert.

>
>
> Guru
> ps- Still waiting from responses on this question from Suresh and  
> McTim..

yes, I understand their definitions are the ones  asked for and i am  
just kibbitzing.

cheers

a.

>
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 May 2008, at 11:27, Raul Echeberria wrote:
>>
>>> There are still many people that prefer to keep the classification  
>>> in 3 stakeholders group.
>>
>>
>> and it is those people who make the rules.  we don't get to decide  
>> how many stakeholder groups there are in things that derive from  
>> the WSIS decisions.  we can argue for change, but we alone do not  
>> make the rules.
>>
>> the WSIS Tunis Agenda defined 3 groups plus 2 cross-cutting  
>> groups.  so within this environment we seem to be stuck with 3  
>> stakeholder groups and 2 cross-cutting groups.
>>
>> btw, in another thread someone asked for a definition of the  
>> Internet technical Community.  in addition to what i have written  
>> abut it before i define it as:
>>
>> those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a partially  
>> coordinated manner, intended to insure the technical integrity and  
>> technical development of the Internet.
>>
>> the term can also be applied to those individuals, whether they  
>> come from government, business or civil society who devote their  
>> lives to the cause of Internet technical integrity and technical  
>> development and who work with or for these organizations.  yes, i  
>> see this as somewhat problematic and at the time of WSIS argued for  
>> a 4th house - the Internet Technical Community.  but as history  
>> shows, this was rejected and thus we, pragmatically, need to live  
>> with what we've got until  the ground rules change.
>>
>> and I agree with Raul when he says:
>>
>>> In that case we have o let anybody to decide to which group they  
>>> feel closer.
>>> Maybe some people in the so called "technical community" feel  
>>> closer from the business sector, and others, like me feels part of  
>>> civil society organizations space.
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> -- 
> ____________
> Gurumurthy K
> IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon May 26 12:58:33 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 01:58:33 +0900
Subject: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights
In-Reply-To: <19C5FBA4-D730-408C-8C1D-06282C90483D@privaterra.info>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info>
 <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <483AE53C.1050302@jacquelinemorris.com>
 <19C5FBA4-D730-408C-8C1D-06282C90483D@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <p0624082fc4609c4d1c04@[221.115.9.42]>

there was no support for the proposal.  I hope I 
am right in saying that in the end even the 
proposer forgot she/he had proposed it.

Adam




>it would indeed be grave if any discussions 
>regarding rights & freedom of expression were 
>removed from the IGF.
>
>I would assume - i hope correctly - that the EU, 
>US, Canada and other countries that supported 
>the inclusion of rights as a key topic for the 
>IGF to discuss did not concur with the 
>proposal...
>
>regards
>
>Robert
>
>
>On 26-May-08, at 12:28 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>
>>So we move to yet another forum...
>>Was the proposal approved?  Did it look like it was getting support?
>>Jacqueline
>>Kleinwächter wrote:
>>>BTW,  in the recent IGF Consultations a 
>>>representative from aother big country (not 
>>>the US) has proposed that FOE should be 
>>>discussed ONLY in the new Human Rights 
>>>Council. The IGF should concentrate on 
>>>"technical issues".  wolfgang
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>>>Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 17:48
>>>An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; Robert Guerra
>>>Betreff: RE: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>>>>
>>>>Hi all
>>>>This seems a little skewed.
>>>>From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues
>>>>are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others,
>>>>but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
>>>>
>>>focus.
>>>
>>>Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs.
>>>http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf
>>>And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs.
>>>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>>>
>>>Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
>>>position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
>>>reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
>>>remit."
>>>
>>>>This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's
>>>>technical remit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
>>>that has been decisively refuted countless times.
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 13:00:40 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:00:40 +0200
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info>
 <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <483AE53C.1050302@jacquelinemorris.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Robert, Jackie
 
the MAG operates under the Chatham House rules and I follow this rule (it my eyes it makes sense in such a sensitive environment). However, if you take your time an read carefully puplished texts with all your diplomatic skills you will find easily the hot potatoes. If you go to p. 5 of the summary MAG report from Geneva, May 2008 (http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf) <http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf)I>  you will find a comment which says that FOE "should have a dedicated session though there was a question whether IGF is the appropriate forum to discuss this issue".
 
Nobody would so stupid to try to censor the IGF. It is a question of priorities. As you can see in various bodies the Internet and FOE is seen a delicate issue. If you want to move foreward (like ICANN with new TLDs) you have to find a way how to deal with this complicated subject which easily get lead you into a trap where nothing anymore is movable. Neither Article 19 nor Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives you an answer to the management of concrete cases on a day-to-day basis. The way how Google explains its behaviour in China to the US congress is a good illustration for the dilemma. 
 
I personally would support to discuss FOE everywhere. It is the cornerstone of Human Rights (UN Resolution 59/I from 1946). However this is not a subject for "preaching other people about your values" or "exporting the 1st Amendement". There is need to be sensitive. There is need to find  a balance how to protect the communication rights and freedoms against other rights and freedoms. There is no FOE a la carte. Such balanced solutions for individual cases can be found very often only with the help of neutral third parties. With other words, the problem is not that from time to time you see some (politically, economically, culturally justified) restrictions (not only in China, Russia and Tunisia but also in the US, in Germany, France or the UK), the question is whether these restrictions got an independent evaluation by a neutral authorized third party (a constitutional court etc.) which has the indepedent power to reject the proposed limitation. But this is theory. We do not live in such an ideal world ;-((((.
 
One step foward would be if violations of FOE would be treated like violations of IPR as a "trade barrier" in the WTO. Some governments are rather sensitive with regard to trade issues while they ignore public criticism with regard to human rights. But the WTO is not interested to discuss FOE ;-((((. Or do you belive that the new US president will bring Article 19 to the next trade negotiations? 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 18:28
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Robert Guerra
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion



So we move to yet another forum...
Was the proposal approved?  Did it look like it was getting support?
Jacqueline
Kleinwächter wrote:
> BTW,
> 
> in the recent IGF Consultations a representative from aother big country (not the US) has proposed that FOE should be discussed ONLY in the new Human Rights Council. The IGF should concentrate on "technical issues".
> 
> wolfgang
> 
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 17:48
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; Robert Guerra
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>>
>> Hi all
>> This seems a little skewed.
>> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues
>> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others,
>> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
>>    
> focus.
>
> Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs.
> http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf
> And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs.
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>
> Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
> position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
> reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
> remit."
>
>  
>> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's
>> technical remit.
>>    
>
> The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
> that has been decisively refuted countless times.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 13:24:21 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:24:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD - NGO talk tomorrow 9.30
Message-ID: <200805261723.m4QHNCQe031606@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

As I said it to those I saw today, I'd like to propose you to join for a
short strategizing discussion tomorrow Tuesday morning at 9.30 in the
Serpentine Bar (1st Floor UN E Building). This is to discuss our approach of
the afternoon meetings (1. CSTD Session General Debate on WSIS follow up,
Palais des Nations Room XVIII, and 2. GAID Open Consultation at the ITU).

 

Best, 

 

Ph

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/35659941/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon May 26 14:10:13 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 20:10:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD - NGO talk tomorrow 9.30
In-Reply-To: <200805261723.m4QHNCQe031606@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
References: <200805261723.m4QHNCQe031606@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <20080526181024.D71B64E5A85@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi philippe

we'll be there

karen

>As I said it to those I saw today, I'd like to propose you to join 
>for a short strategizing discussion tomorrow Tuesday morning at 9.30 
>in the Serpentine Bar (1st Floor UN E Building). This is to discuss 
>our approach of the afternoon meetings (1. CSTD Session General 
>Debate on WSIS follow up, Palais des Nations Room XVIII, and 2. GAID 
>Open Consultation at the ITU).
>
>Best,
>
>Ph
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/09f7961b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 15:54:00 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:54:00 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights
In-Reply-To: <p0624082fc4609c4d1c04@[221.115.9.42]>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC88E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425DD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <483AE53C.1050302@jacquelinemorris.com> <19C5FBA4-D730-408C-8C1D-06282C90483D@privaterra.info> <p0624082fc4609c4d1c04@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC896@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
> there was no support for the proposal.  I hope I 
> am right in saying that in the end even the 
> proposer forgot she/he had proposed it.
> 

That is good news. 

Still, we really need to be aware of the techniques that can be used in
a discussion forum to engage in politics. Since IGF is non-binding and
does not negotiate texts, politics takes other forms. I call it a
politics of agenda-setting. As such, techniques such as forum-shifting,
silencing or pre-emption are all possible and commonly used ways of
getting things off the agenda. 

For example, instead of saying, "I am against freedom of expression, and
I don't want anyone to be able to pressure me on that point in a public
meeting," it is far more convenient to say, "oh, that should be taken
care of in another venue" -- one that is more easily controlled. 


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 May 26 16:09:53 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:09:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Suresh:
 
You have been very active lately on the IGC list. 
If I am not mistaken, however, you have, prior to this, repeatedly
asserted that you think the IGF is a useless institution, even though
this caucus is organized primarily around it, and that this caucus has
no impact on real Internet goverance. 
 
I find this confusing. Can you answer a few simple questions, please? 
 
Are you a member of IGC? I.e., have you signed the charter? 
Do you think the UN IG Forum has an important and legitimate role in
internet governance, and if so, what is it? 
Is your participation in caucus discussion intended to strengthen our
ability to build a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance
processes? 
If you think we are all wasting our time here, why are _you_ here? 
 
Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080526/f67f9795/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon May 26 18:14:36 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 26 May 2008 22:14:36 -0000
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
 off the agenda ... ?
In-Reply-To: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <20080526221436.24413.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) published a public statement  
>the other day in which he and other congressional representatives seem  
>to indicate that ICANN promotes free speech principles. However recent  
>comments by members of the ICANN at-large advisory committee as well  
>as members of  ICANN staff seem to indicate that issues of freedom of  
>expression, censorship and internet freedom is NOT of concern to ICANN.

Hi, Robert.  Any objections if I forward this gross misrepresentation
of the discussion on the ALAC list back to the ALAC?

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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon May 26 20:42:36 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 20:42:36 -0400
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights
Message-ID: <s83b20e3.004@gwia203.syr.edu>

Wolfgang,

I agree with your main point on the need for negotiation and appreciation for differing points of view in any international discussion on issues such as freedom of expression.

However, I am surprised you say 'noone would be so stupid to try to censor the IGF.' I seem to recall several instances eg vociferous objections to the IGF addressing critical Internet resources, or the meaning and future of the IGF's existence. To name 2 examples, without directly questioning anyone's intelligence. ; ) Both times successfully overcome. 

Still I would say the opposite, noone should be surprised by continued efforts to censor/constrain the IGF, it goes with the (difficult and sensitive) territory.  

Even the statement that 'the IGF cannot negotiate and agree on texts', which I see some making, I view as a defeatist, and false: an IGF workshop or dynamic coalition can do whatever they want, including agree to a text. Naturally that is non-binding for IGF as a whole, but could include a variety of strong commitments, perhaps carried over to other fora.  

Lee



Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 05/26/08 1:00 PM >>>
 
Robert, Jackie
 
the MAG operates under the Chatham House rules and I follow this rule (it my eyes it makes sense in such a sensitive environment). However, if you take your time an read carefully puplished texts with all your diplomatic skills you will find easily the hot potatoes. If you go to p. 5 of the summary MAG report from Geneva, May 2008 (http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf) <http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf)I>  you will find a comment which says that FOE "should have a dedicated session though there was a question whether IGF is the appropriate forum to discuss this issue".
 
Nobody would so stupid to try to censor the IGF. It is a question of priorities. As you can see in various bodies the Internet and FOE is seen a delicate issue. If you want to move foreward (like ICANN with new TLDs) you have to find a way how to deal with this complicated subject which easily get lead you into a trap where nothing anymore is movable. Neither Article 19 nor Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives you an answer to the management of concrete cases on a day-to-day basis. The way how Google explains its behaviour in China to the US congress is a good illustration for the dilemma. 
 
I personally would support to discuss FOE everywhere. It is the cornerstone of Human Rights (UN Resolution 59/I from 1946). However this is not a subject for "preaching other people about your values" or "exporting the 1st Amendement". There is need to be sensitive. There is need to find  a balance how to protect the communication rights and freedoms against other rights and freedoms. There is no FOE a la carte. Such balanced solutions for individual cases can be found very often only with the help of neutral third parties. With other words, the problem is not that from time to time you see some (politically, economically, culturally justified) restrictions (not only in China, Russia and Tunisia but also in the US, in Germany, France or the UK), the question is whether these restrictions got an independent evaluation by a neutral authorized third party (a constitutional court etc.) which has the indepedent power to reject the proposed limitation. But this is theory. We do not live in such an ideal world ;-((((.
 
One step foward would be if violations of FOE would be treated like violations of IPR as a "trade barrier" in the WTO. Some governments are rather sensitive with regard to trade issues while they ignore public criticism with regard to human rights. But the WTO is not interested to discuss FOE ;-((((. Or do you belive that the new US president will bring Article 19 to the next trade negotiations? 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 18:28
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Robert Guerra
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion



So we move to yet another forum...
Was the proposal approved?  Did it look like it was getting support?
Jacqueline
Kleinwächter wrote:
> BTW,
> 
> in the recent IGF Consultations a representative from aother big country (not the US) has proposed that FOE should be discussed ONLY in the new Human Rights Council. The IGF should concentrate on "technical issues".
> 
> wolfgang
> 
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 17:48
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; Robert Guerra
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>>
>> Hi all
>> This seems a little skewed.
>> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues
>> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others,
>> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
>>    
> focus.
>
> Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs.
> http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf
> And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs.
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>
> Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
> position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
> reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
> remit."
>
>  
>> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's
>> technical remit.
>>    
>
> The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
> that has been decisively refuted countless times.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 21:05:39 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:05:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
Message-ID: <s83b2638.026@gwia203.syr.edu>

Guru,

Not to get too pedantic (probably hard to do on this list) but poli sci
theory includes large literatures on 'voluntary associations' and
interest group politics, who do govern themselves, and in the case of eg
standards organizations, can make decisions that have wide effects on
industry, government and society. We could get into corporatist and
neocorporatist theory here too, but ok now I am getting too pedantic.

In sum, there may be global Internet governance institutions that are
closer, in both philosophy and objective, to civil society, and others
further removed. I for one would be delighted if ICANN, ISOC and IETF
etc were to wish to identify more closely with civil society, and see no
case in the literature for excluding them a priori. For example the
International Red Cross - performs (governs) critical emergency
functions, is organized as an international organization, is closer or
further removed from the government in specific nations - but we would
not exclude the Red Cross in spite of its 'voluntary tax' in times of
emergency powers - from civil society. Right?

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> guru at itforchange.net 05/26/08 10:06 AM >>>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon May 26 21:26:35 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:26:35 +0800
Subject: [governance] Book announcement: Multi-Stakeholder Governance and
 the Internet Governance Forum
Message-ID: <B0C3C24D-E110-4B52-8535-F0DDD2DF25EB@Malcolm.id.au>

I am pleased to announce a new book - please excuse the cross-posting  
to several lists.
Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum
Author: Jeremy Malcolm
Published: May 2008
ISBN: 978-0-9805084-0-6
Pages: 639
Multi-stakeholder governance is a fresh approach to the development of  
public policy, bringing together governments, the private sector and  
civil society in partnership.  The movement towards this new  
governance paradigm has been most marked in areas involving global  
networks of stakeholders, too intricate to be represented by  
governments alone.  Nowhere is this better illustrated than on the  
Internet, where it is an inherent characteristic of the network that  
laws, and the conduct to which those laws are directed, will cross  
national borders.

Thus momentum has developed to bring multi-stakeholder governance to  
the Internet, through reforms such as the Internet Governance Forum  
(IGF).  In this groundbreaking and incisive book, Jeremy Malcolm  
examines the new model of multi-stakeholder governance for the  
Internet regime that the IGF represents.  In doing so Jeremy outlines  
the state of the regime as it preceded the IGF's formation, and  
provides a faithful yet accessible account of international law,  
international relations, democratic theory and consensus decision- 
making as they bear on the topic.  He then builds a compelling case  
for the reform of the IGF to enable it to fulfil its mandate as an  
institution for multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

"A book that ought to be read by every participant in the UN Internet  
Governance Forum. Malcolm provides an exhaustive exploration of the  
great potential -- and the obstacles and dead ends -- faced by multi- 
stakeholder policy making around the Internet."

— Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School Of Information Studies  
and XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology

"Internet governance, once a distant abstraction, increasingly touches  
everyone, even those seemingly remote from the Net. Jeremy Malcolm's  
in-depth analysis of its recent evolution and the role of the IGF, a  
key player in this rapidly developing field, is a timely contribution  
and a useful reference for scholars, practitioners and policymakers  
alike."

— David Vaile, Executive Director, Baker & McKenzie Cyberspace Law and  
Policy Centre


For more information please see:

* The publisher's Web site: http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook
* Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC
* Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0980508401
* Press contact: +61-8-9213 0801 / press at terminus.net.au

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon May 26 22:10:20 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:10:20 -0700
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net>

Two or three simple answers -

This is what I told declan earlier - the process doesnt matter as much as
getting all the stakeholders together in the same forum, or the same room
does.

----****----
There are people attending this from a wide variety of backgrounds. You
have (nongovernmental organizations), you have regulators, you have law
enforcement, you have (Internet service providers). They're all
stakeholders in solving this problem. Probably the one thing is getting
people in the same room and exposing them to the same ideas. 
----****----

It is quite consistent with the role of the IGF as a discussion forum. You
are trying - rpt trying - to set up governance and "soft" (!) oversight
roles .. that just might not work. Change, I've often argued, comes from
within - in other words, by using open governance processes in most of the
institutions that are around here already.

My participation in the caucus discussion strengthens where I can
contribute, and attacks what I see as pernicious moves by a small section
of this caucus to act in a way that goes entirely against the letter and
spirit of the caucus.  Various motivations for this are discussed, and Veni
nails most of them in his blog post.

Why am I here? I am here because various people I do respect, and that I do
know to be doing good work, are also here. And I continue to participate
constructively when they post. I also oppose arrant nonsense when it is
trotted out simply because of a desire to play politics / further "IGP"
(standing for, in this case, "internet governance professional" **) goals
in some cases, or because of a particular ideology in other cases .. and
oppose it when - 1. It goes against the letter (or more particularly, the
spirit) of this caucus

2. Not opposing it means that other people dont actually end up believing
the nonsense enough to matter.

** If the word "IAB" can be overloaded, why not "IGP"

Milton L Mueller [26/05/08 16:09 -0400]:
>Suresh:
> 
>You have been very active lately on the IGC list. 
>If I am not mistaken, however, you have, prior to this, repeatedly
>asserted that you think the IGF is a useless institution, even though
>this caucus is organized primarily around it, and that this caucus has
>no impact on real Internet goverance. 
> 
>I find this confusing. Can you answer a few simple questions, please? 
> 
>Are you a member of IGC? I.e., have you signed the charter? 
>Do you think the UN IG Forum has an important and legitimate role in
>internet governance, and if so, what is it? 
>Is your participation in caucus discussion intended to strengthen our
>ability to build a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
>representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance
>processes? 
>If you think we are all wasting our time here, why are _you_ here? 
> 
>Milton Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>------------------------------
>Internet Governance Project:
>http://internetgovernance.org <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 guru at itforchange.net  Mon May 26 22:28:10 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 07:58:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <s83b2638.025@gwia203.syr.edu>
References: <s83b2638.025@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <483B71BA.8060803@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/424c5727/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon May 26 22:30:03 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:00:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
Message-ID: <483B722B.3060804@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/0a30ee9c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 22:42:29 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:12:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <483B722B.3060804@itforchange.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <483B722B.3060804@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <020401c8bfa3$50668690$f13393b0$@net>

Consider this please

 

1.       Bertrand has CS cred .. you do acknowledge that.  

2.       He works for the French government now.  

 

My position is -

1.       He can still stand for election, it is his decision

2.       When standing for election, he should not be excluded on the basis
of his employer

3.       When standing for election he will, as is the norm, make a
statement on what conflict of interest(s) he will have, and how he expects
those to affect his representation of the caucus, in the MAG

4.       The nomcomm takes that statement into account, when accepting or
declining his candidacy 

 

The two positions I advocated are entirely consistent with each other.  

 

thanks

suresh

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:00 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: 'Avri Doria'
Subject: Re: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

 

Suresh

How is this consistent with your previous mail that 
if some PERSON has CS cred, he has CS cred, regardless of whatever
organization (private sector, intl org, " IAB"  etc) that he happens to work
for.

Not able to understand your position.

Guru

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: 

It is up to him to stand for election. And to declare any conflicts of
interest

It is THEN up to the nomcomm to evaluate his statement of candidacy

It is not, with all due respect, up to the nomcomm to apply a blanket ban

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 10:10 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria'
Subject: Re: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

 

Suresh

Bertrand has been active member of IGC and as a CS person in WSIS. He is
currently member of GAC, representing Govt of France. Do you think that he
can also be nominated by IGC to MAG under CS quota?  

Guru

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: 

I will agree with Avri's definition 100%, and again submit that if some
PERSON has CS cred, he has CS cred, regardless of whatever organization
(private sector, intl org, " IAB"  etc) that he happens to work for.

 

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:38 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

 

Avri,

There is a serious problem when the same term is used to mean two different
things. It leads to a lot of confusion, when in an argument one person is
using one meaning and the other person, the second meaning.

Can we try and use two different terms for these two categories.

We could consistently use 

A. IAB (Internet Administration Bodies) for those "those _organizations_
that focus on work, often  in a partially coordinated manner, intended to
insure the technical integrity and technical development of the Internet." I
would add - 'and participate in the administration / governance of the
internet'. The IGC submission in the feb consultations clearly covered this
group when it stated that the participation of IABs in MAG should not be at
the cost of CS participation'

B. and use 'technical  experts' (i am sure better names are possible) for
individuals - these experts can belong to Govt or Business or CS groups (as
also suggested by Raul). 

Guru
ps- Still waiting from responses on this question from Suresh and McTim..


Avri Doria wrote: 


On 26 May 2008, at 11:27, Raul Echeberria wrote: 






There are still many people that prefer to keep the classification in 3
stakeholders group. 



and it is those people who make the rules.  we don't get to decide how many
stakeholder groups there are in things that derive from the WSIS decisions.
we can argue for change, but we alone do not make the rules. 

the WSIS Tunis Agenda defined 3 groups plus 2 cross-cutting groups.  so
within this environment we seem to be stuck with 3 stakeholder groups and 2
cross-cutting groups. 

btw, in another thread someone asked for a definition of the Internet
technical Community.  in addition to what i have written abut it before i
define it as: 

those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a partially coordinated
manner, intended to insure the technical integrity and technical development
of the Internet. 

the term can also be applied to those individuals, whether they come from
government, business or civil society who devote their lives to the cause of
Internet technical integrity and technical development and who work with or
for these organizations.  yes, i see this as somewhat problematic and at the
time of WSIS argued for a 4th house - the Internet Technical Community.  but
as history shows, this was rejected and thus we, pragmatically, need to live
with what we've got until  the ground rules change. 

and I agree with Raul when he says: 






In that case we have o let anybody to decide to which group they feel
closer. 
Maybe some people in the so called "technical community" feel closer from
the business sector, and others, like me feels part of civil society
organizations space. 



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 







-- 
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities






-- 
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities





-- 
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/217be2d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 22:49:43 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:19:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <483B71BA.8060803@itforchange.net>
References: <s83b2638.025@gwia203.syr.edu> <483B71BA.8060803@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <020f01c8bfa4$533bd130$f9b37390$@net>

The red cross has no authority to perform its services?  I am sorry but you
will find that you are mistaken

 

National red cross bodies tend to have specific roles, and are governed by
an international convention (the geneva convention among others) .. such as
this one for the American Red Cross - 

 

http://mowercounty.redcross.org/AboutUs/charters2.html

Unlike other congressionally chartered organizations, the Red Cross
maintains a special relationship with the federal government. It has the
legal status of "a federal instrumentality," due to its charter requirements
to carry out responsibilities delegated to it by the federal government.
Among these responsibilities are: 

*	to perform all duties incumbent upon a national society in
accordance with the spirit and conditions of the Geneva Conventions to which
the United States is a signatory, 
*	to provide family communications and other forms of assistance to
members of the U.S. military, and 
*	to maintain a system of domestic and international disaster relief,
including mandated responsibilities under the Federal Response Plan
coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

In fact it is a classic case of an organization that has specific, even
chartered and mandated, roles, but still remains essentially civil society
and multistakeholder in nature (so that the .org gTLD it has for its domain
is entirely appropriate).    Oh, quite a lot like ICANN in fact except that
ICANN is a US government chartered institution that later grew to include
international stakeholders, including governments (gac), civ soc (ncuc) etc.

 

                suresh

 

From: Guru [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:58 AM
To: Lee McKnight
Cc: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] What this debate is really about

 

thanks Lee

While I agree with your point that the distinctions amongst the groups is
itself dynamic, the Red Cross analogy seems a bit too stretched. 

Performing relief services is not a governance function by itself, since Red
Cross has no authority to perform its services. (In contrast ICANN has the
authority to approve gtlds etc). Also a voluntary tax is an oxymoron.

In my mail too, I have mentioned that we are moving towards new worlds where
the distinctions between the governed and those governing will blur/become
more complex (that the IGF itself a process in that direction). But there is
no ambiguity in my mind about ICANN not being CS at this point in time for
the reasons I have mentioned. 

Also I think global governance issues are very complex, I am not quite sure
if the movement we want is of ICANN to become CS, or for IABs to develop
(better) accountability structures as governing institutions to those they
govern (meaning keeping the distinction between the governed and governing
transparent), rather than compromise on these under the ambivalence of
becoming 'participatory' etc etc. 

regards,
Guru

Lee McKnight wrote: 

Guru,
 
Not to get too pedantic (probably hard to do on this list) but poli sci
theory includes large literatures on 'voluntary associations' and
interest group politics, who do govern themselves, and in the case of eg
standards organizations, can make decisions that have wide effects on
industry, government and society. We could get into corporatist and
neocorporatist theory here too, but ok now I am getting too pedantic.
 
In sum, there may be global Internet governance institutions that are
closer, in both philosophy and objective, to civil society, and others
further removed. I for one would be delighted if ICANN, ISOC and IETF
etc were to wish to identify more closely with civil society, and see no
case in the literature for excluding them a priori. For example the
International Red Cross - performs (governs) critical emergency
functions, is organized as an international organization, is closer or
further removed from the government in specific nations - but we would
not exclude the Red Cross in spite of its 'voluntary tax' in times of
emergency powers - from civil society. Right?
 
Lee
 
 
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
  

guru at itforchange.net 05/26/08 10:06 AM >>>
        

 
 
  





-- 
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/d8af43d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 23:38:33 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 23:38:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


Suresh, 
OK, we're making some progress. On this question: 

> >Do you think the UN IG Forum has an important and legitimate role in
> >internet governance, and if so, what is it?

I can surmise that you believe the answer is yes, because you said that
it is good to get all stakeholders in the same room, and the IGF does
that. That's good to know; welcome aboard. 

You do not advance a very clear concept of how and why getting
stakeholders in the same room accomplishes anything, but you do assert
that its use as a discussion forum leading to new forms of governance or
"soft" oversight "just might not work". But your choice of words also
implies that it just _might_ work. This is a perfectly legitimate
difference of opinion, and we should be able to have rational
discussions of it.

I still don't know the answer to these questions: 

> >Are you a member of IGC? I.e., have you signed the charter?

A simple yes or no would suffice here. 

I can understand why you might want to dodge that one, but if the answer
is no, your constant personal sniping at a few active participants and
your generally negative tone toward our activities are cast in a new
light. It suggests that your bombardment of IGC participants with many
messages is not done to build but rather to harass and obstruct, or
perhaps out of personal spite. Imagine, for example, a diehard atheist
who insisted on participating in a forum for discussion, advocacy,
action, and representation for devout Christians (or the reverse). What
is the point? 

Here is another question you did not answer:

> >Is your participation in caucus discussion intended to strengthen our
> >ability to build a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
> >representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance
> >processes?

Again, a simple yes or no would suffice. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 23:48:25 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:18:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>

Let me be clearer.

Stakeholders in the same room works to enhance cooperation for much more
attainable and real world goals that get discussed in the IGF. Access,
Freedom of Expression, etc. I personally found several very useful contacts
in my little corner of the world (multistakeholder cooperation to mitigate
spam, bots and other online threats), who I wouldn't have found in the same
room at several other events.

What won't work is trying to run a coup on ICANN from outside, say.

As for your calling me spiteful, that's entirely a case of the pot calling
the kettle black.  You are at impunity to say Lee McKnight (say) shouldn't
be running anything in the Carribbean that doesn't involve you, and to
insinuate various other things (such as that Veni is an IGP).  Merely paying
you back in the very same coin you spend so freely on this list and in real
life.

Call it a disrespectful interface to an uncivil society (with due apologies
to Ms.Misek Falkoff for abusing that term)

I'll look forward to pointing out in great detail the flaws of whatever
"panel" you put together at the IGF. Hyderabad is only an hour away by air
from where I live, so that should be easier for me than traveling to Rio.

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:09 AM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: Guru
> Subject: RE: [governance] Simple and basic questions
> 
> 
> Suresh,
> OK, we're making some progress. On this question:
> 
> > >Do you think the UN IG Forum has an important and legitimate role in
> > >internet governance, and if so, what is it?
> 
> I can surmise that you believe the answer is yes, because you said that
> it is good to get all stakeholders in the same room, and the IGF does
> that. That's good to know; welcome aboard.
> 
> You do not advance a very clear concept of how and why getting
> stakeholders in the same room accomplishes anything, but you do assert
> that its use as a discussion forum leading to new forms of governance
> or
> "soft" oversight "just might not work". But your choice of words also
> implies that it just _might_ work. This is a perfectly legitimate
> difference of opinion, and we should be able to have rational
> discussions of it.
> 
> I still don't know the answer to these questions:
> 
> > >Are you a member of IGC? I.e., have you signed the charter?
> 
> A simple yes or no would suffice here.
> 
> I can understand why you might want to dodge that one, but if the
> answer
> is no, your constant personal sniping at a few active participants and
> your generally negative tone toward our activities are cast in a new
> light. It suggests that your bombardment of IGC participants with many
> messages is not done to build but rather to harass and obstruct, or
> perhaps out of personal spite. Imagine, for example, a diehard atheist
> who insisted on participating in a forum for discussion, advocacy,
> action, and representation for devout Christians (or the reverse). What
> is the point?
> 
> Here is another question you did not answer:
> 
> > >Is your participation in caucus discussion intended to strengthen
> our
> > >ability to build a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
> > >representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance
> > >processes?
> 
> Again, a simple yes or no would suffice.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 26 23:54:16 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 23:54:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
Message-ID: <s83b4dc5.044@gwia203.syr.edu>

Guru,

I agree a more variegated view would include international governance
institutions which are a mix of forms and functions - much facilitated
by the Internet. The distinction between subject and object of
governance is indeed confusing when 1 person may be both, at the same
time. 

'Civil society' will not merge with ICANN. But ICANN as an institution
can evolve toward or away from civil society. I prefer toward.  

Also, methinks someone at ICANN has figured out it's politically and
strategically a safer spot for them to be in the long run than the early
proclamations and designations as strictly private sector. Doesn't mean
IGC need always agree with ICANN, nor vice versa. And doesn't change
anything re MAG II, which is a UN headache now.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> guru at itforchange.net 05/26/08 10:28 PM >>>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue May 27 03:18:52 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:18:52 +0300
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
	 <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805270018k26619636wa18ed89d07c4979c@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies for the delay in my response, been in the bush, connecting
rural communities.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Suresh
>
> Repeatedly on this list, I (and Parminder and others) have sought the
> definition of the 'technical community'. This term is being used ambiguously
> to reflect two different ideas:
>
> a. people who have technical expertise - such as yourself, McTim, Carlos,
> Izumi etc etc
> b. Organizations that are currently performing Internet
> Administration/Governance (who we termed as IAB in a earlier discussion on
> the list) - which basically implies the people who represent them

Why can't it be both a and b?  People and orgs? Id on't see any
confusion there.  What you fail to understand is that, by and large,
your "IABs" don't represent people, they act as fora for people to
represent themselves (or do you mean in the "represent in the MAG"
sense?


>
> I don't think it is anyones case that the first group is to be completely
> kept out of CS. If that is what you are implying in your mail below, that is
> the position of Parminder and Milton , then I suggest that it is a
> misrepresentation.

Not completely, but certainly not to be nominated by this caucus
according to the nomcom 2008!

>
> On the other hand, wrt IAB, the position of IGC is clear. See the the Civil
> Society Internet Governance Caucus's Inputs for the Open IGF Consultations,
> Geneva, 26th February, 2008 -
> http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC%20-%20MAG%20Rotation.pdf
>
> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
> administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards
> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
> should not be at the expense of civil society participation".
>

This doesn't mean (however much you want it to mean) that IGC members
who are full time staff of these bodies should be excluded from our
nomination the the MAG.

> As I mentioned in my previous mail, IGC selects members for the CS quota.
> Hence it seems clear to me that IABs (being people who represent IABs)

But what if they are representing themselves, in their "personal capacity"?
Since we HAVE done it before, I'd like to know what "precedent" the
nomcom referred to.  Do you remember?


-- 
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  Tue May 27 03:41:20 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:41:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <483AC3D1.4020700@itforchange.net>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <F9FA7950-E7B2-4299-81C1-C4C68E5718B9@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <48382016.5010509@rits.org.br>
	 <f65fb55e0805240734vc2b7989jf421ecbd4b68be96@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48397E4D.1090704@rits.org.br>
	 <f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <483A5BAC.5080400@itforchange.net>
	 <f65fb55e0805252359x6a7415cbs4f7b6b232f3fe033@mail.gmail.com>
	 <483AC3D1.4020700@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805270041q131b7171y8b521494567699e4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim,
>
> "Well, since ICANN is a CS body IMO, then certainly Keiren would be
> representing CS views".
>
> I think this is the basic issue of disagreement. Not going into our views of
> ICANN functioning (which we know are quite different), let us  address the
> nature of ICANN, which is that of a governance institution and that too a
> global governance institution. ICANN approves gtlds, allocates ip addresses
> which are critical global resources. It collects charges on each domain name
> purchased (since there is no option to the user in making this payment if
> the user wants a domain name, it is actually in the nature of a tax),
> manages (or mismanages, depending on your pov :-) ) the DNS etc.
>
> A governance institution by very definition cannot be part of CS.

Now THIS is our sticking point.  I say it can, you disagree.

Didn't I give the example of my child's school board a few months ago?
they are a governance body, and fully CS too.


A
> governance body governs, has authority, takes decisions that affects others.
> CS is not in such a position of authority


It can be! I respectfully suggest that this is a very limited perspective.

, it responds, interfaces with
> governance institutions. (If Diplo Foundation is running any primer on
> political science, it may be useful for some of our friends to undergo :-)
> )

See down thread for learned political scietists who don't agree with
your view on this.

> It is possible that the functioning of a governance institution can be very
> democratic and participatory (butoc) but any claims that ICANN can be
> considered part of CS are as valid as accepting any democratic government
> claim to be CS.

See LSE defintion please.

 Will you accept to endorse a IT minister or bureaucrat of a
> country which is governed democratically as a CS nominee to MAG?

IF they were a member of this list, they could be by our charter.  The
2008 nomcom made a decsion that was contrary to our charter.  How, in
your view, can we stop future nomcoms from political machinations?


People who
> play certain roles in ICANN, say the CEO of ICANN, or its 'Manager for
> public participation' (Kieren) cannot be assumed to be able default to any
> CS positions and hence cannot be considered by IGC for CS candidature.
>

Please see above and my reply re: Bertrand.

> "It's just a part of CS that you don't agree
> with.  I have no doubt that Bertrand COULD represent both saying "the
> French government position is "x", while the IGC position is "y".  He
> could also "in his personal capacity" give his own views if they
> differ from either of the above."
>
> Mc Tim you are missing the point. The issue is not whether Bertrand COULD
> give views X or Y. For CS to nominate Bertrand, it needs to be reasonably
> sure that he will represent CS positions in any ms /mush discussions. It is
> reasonable for us to assume that Bertrand will not be able to default to CS
> positions as the GAC representative of French Government, rather than the
> other way around.

Then why didn't the nomcom exclude all those fulltime employees of
govt's who are members of the IGC?  If a nomcom thinks he couldn't do
the job, then don't nominate him, but don't discrimate against a class
of people based on who thier employer might be, when;

a) we haven't reached a definition "Internet technical community"

b) which orgs might be on that list, and who decides this

>
> {Else extending your logic, Paul Twoomey or the IT secretary of Nigeria can
> also 'give their personal opinions' (every human can give views in personal
> capacity), can IGC nominate either to MAG from CS list??}
>

By our charter, we COULD.  The 2008 nomcom didn't understand this.

> While we may all desire to move towards a world where all of us ('governed')
> also play a role in governance and IGF is perhaps an attempt in this
> direction, it is currently not reality.
>

But it is in what you call the IABs, at least in the one where I was a
fulltime employee, and the ones whose processes I participate in now.
These "Internet administrative bodies" are MUCH more CS than this
caucus, in that the kind of thing we are talking about now doesn't
currently happen in their open, transparent processes.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue May 27 03:48:22 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:48:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] Mercenaries on the list
In-Reply-To: <483AC3ED.20008@itforchange.net>
References: <ec8caada0805240911p4077811jed3d73ffc62e88f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003101c8bdba$40278e40$c076aac0$@net>
	 <483A5FDE.5030405@itforchange.net>
	 <011901c8bf00$0f4192c0$2dc4b840$@net> <483AC3ED.20008@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805270048u52119171oc2b8f9bbb67fcc4a@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Suresh
>
> You have used the term technical community in your mail where you asserted
> that Milton and Parminder want to keep the technical community out (which I
> have said is a misrepresentation)
>
> Can you please share your definition of this term 'technical community', so
> that we cease to use it equivocally. (Mc Tim look forward to your definition
> as well)

If you can define CS for me, I'll define 'technical community' for you ;-)

Seriously, Avri's definition sort of works for me, as do others, but
Stephane and Suresh are spot on when they reiterate there is not ONE
Internet technical community, just as there is not ONE CS.  Just
becasue you disagree with ISOC or ICANN doesn't mean that you should
exclude the staff of hundreds of other orgs, when those orgs may or
may not disagree with ICANN or ISOC, does it?



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From karl at cavebear.com  Tue May 27 03:52:43 2008
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 00:52:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] What this debate is really about
In-Reply-To: <s83b4dc5.044@gwia203.syr.edu>
References: <s83b4dc5.044@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <483BBDCB.4040305@cavebear.com>

Lee McKnight wrote:

> 'Civil society' will not merge with ICANN. But ICANN as an institution
> can evolve toward or away from civil society. I prefer toward.  

Do we really want institutions of internet governance that can so 
fluidly evolve?

Or is it more appropriate that such institutions be clearly defined and 
strongly walled into that definition?

Is not the art of building institutions of governance more than merely 
the art of finding ways to solve problems?  Is it not also the art of 
constructing those solutions so that the solutions can not easily become 
cancers?

ICANN, to use your example, was intended for a very narrow technical 
function - assuring technical stability of DNS/IP addresses.  That we so 
easily accept that ICANN may, and has, slopped well beyond that intent 
is indicative of what I believe is a dangerous tendency to quietly 
accede when bodies of governance, internet or otherwise, expand their scope.

Were ICANN to constrain itself to the narrow field it was originally 
intended to occupy then questions whether it is aligned with or opposed 
to free speech, or other such matters, would rarely, if ever, arise.

We need bodies of internet governance that address many specific issues.
Many of those issues pertain to technical matters - for instance the 
establishment of a clearing house for end-to-end quality-of-service 
assurances (not guarantees).  Only of few of the remaining issues 
necessarily affect fundamental human rights.

Those bodies, such as ICANN, that have no need to affect those rights 
ought to be kept small and confined so that they can have no such effects.

And for those relatively few governance bodies that will need to make 
decisions affecting fundamental rights, it is very important that those 
most directly involved - the humans who have those rights - have not 
only a clear voice in the choices that are made, but a clear ability to 
compel those choices without falling prey to those pre-selected special 
interests who bear that title of internet neo-nobility called "stakeholder".

If we discover at some future date that what we thought at first was a 
merely technical matter is really a matter with broader import, then it 
becomes appropriate to reconsider, reform, or even replace, the means of 
governance of that matter.

		--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 vb at bertola.eu  Tue May 27 03:55:13 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:55:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
In-Reply-To: <653C179B-3DA0-4E4E-8D9F-F4B3DC4B261E@internet.law.pro>
References: <7DA8D79F-FC7E-4649-854F-625829C0F3A5@privaterra.info> <483AD481.2030806@jacquelinemorris.com> <52814DCC-A508-4436-8733-3EA726BEE9C9@privaterra.info> <483AE2DA.90704@jacquelinemorris.com> <653C179B-3DA0-4E4E-8D9F-F4B3DC4B261E@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <483BBE61.1060404@bertola.eu>

Bret Fausett ha scritto:
> I believe in the power of making statements. I believe that making 
> statements about what is right and just is both good in and of itself 
> and sometimes has the power to create change for the better in the world.
> 
> The participants in ICANN ought to know that the presence of an ICANN 
> meeting in a host country is used by many inside that country as a sign 
> that they are doing something right. If Egypt, or any host country for 
> that matter, is filtering Internet access or otherwise abusing its 
> gateways to prevent or impair end-to-end communications between users of 
> the world, that is something that, in my view, ought to be publicized 
> and condemned. We ought not let the presence of an ICANN meeting be 
> misused, by those who would deny Internet access to others, as a symbol 
> that they are doing the right thing.
> 
> I don't know what the Internet in Egypt looks like, but I will certainly 
> investigate that before the Cairo meeting. Certainly filtering is not an 
> ICANN issue, but the celebration of the local Internet community always 
> accompanies an ICANN meeting. While I wouldn't necessarily expect ICANN, 
> as a corporation, to make any statements about the host community's 
> Internet policies and practices on filtering, I would applaud ICANN _as 
> a community_ for making a statement about what is right and just.

I may agree, but I would like to point out that slapping your host in 
the face in public at the very moment when he is extremely proud of 
hosting you and extremely nervous about the success of the event might 
not be the best way to convince him that he is doing something wrong, or 
to provoke a positive reaction.

I had a chance to visit Egypt a couple of months ago, as I was invited 
to speak at a conference there. I found not just impressive 
infrastructure, but also a group of young and committed people who are 
genuinely enthusiastic about the opportunities that ICTs open for them 
and for their country. Of course the local culture requires a certain 
number of taboos and (self-)censorships, but still, the discussions I 
had there in public were in many cases more open and modern than the 
ones I can have in Italy these days.

I noticed in Egypt promising seeds of a better future, but they can only 
grow if we let the Egyptians cultivate them until they are ripe. Freedom 
of expression, much like representative democracy, is a delicate and 
pervasive matter that requires deep cultural changes; you cannot impose 
it from the outside by giving orders (or by sending tanks). You can only 
keep the dialogue open, and encourage the society to evolve in the right 
direction, while at the same time understanding that not all cultures 
are the same and not all societies prioritize values in the same order; 
all in all, there might be peoples that actually and genuinely like to 
live in a society where freedom of expression is not unlimited.

I missed the discussion on the At Large list and I don't know the exact 
terms of the argument, but I suggest that it's not just unilateral 
statements from a group of temporary aliens that you need; an actual 
dialogue, in which you also learn from them the reasons why certain 
limits are being placed, might be more productive for both parts.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue May 27 04:08:57 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:08:57 +0300
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
	 <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
	 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
	 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
	 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
	 <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
	 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>
	 <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805270108g1900c49cp8a6f5c64d1b70875@mail.gmail.com>

MIlton, interesting questions that i'd like to comment on.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Suresh:
>
> You have been very active lately on the IGC list.
> If I am not mistaken, however, you have, prior to this, repeatedly asserted
> that you think the IGF is a useless institution, even though this caucus is
> organized primarily around it, and that this caucus has no impact on real
> Internet goverance.

It would if it focused on getting people involved in Internet
governance directly, and not on such indirect methods such as the IGF.

>
> I find this confusing. Can you answer a few simple questions, please?
>
> Are you a member of IGC? I.e., have you signed the charter?

I am and I have.

> Do you think the UN IG Forum has an important and legitimate role in
> internet governance, and if so, what is it?

The role is to do discussion and capacity building IMHO.

> Is your participation in caucus discussion intended to strengthen
> our ability to build a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance
> processes?

If we would actually encourage more CS participation in existing IG
processes, I would be much happier with the work of this caucus.

> If you think we are all wasting our time here, why are _you_ here?

We waste a lot of time talking about the shape of the table issues,
when there are many, perfectly good tables in use that we pretty much
ignore (except to exclude them, and not count them as "us").

-- 
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 voxinternet at gmail.com  Tue May 27 05:59:23 2008
From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:59:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Revisiting_Internet_Governance,_Invi?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?tation_=E0_la_journ=E9e_d'=E9tude_Vox_Internet_II?=
Message-ID: <e30607110805270259q349bbed3y192c00527f410ffe@mail.gmail.com>

Journée d'étude Vox Internet II du 25 juin 2008

*Revisiting Internet Governance :
Ethics and Politics in human-objects networks*


*Veuillez trouver en pièce jointe le programme complet de la journée ainsi
que le plan d'accès.*

*Entrée libre sous réserve d'inscription à l'adresse contact at voxinternet.org,
ou par simple réponse à ce courriel.
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/296d07aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Vox Internet Journée d'étude Revisiting Internet Governance.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52747 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/296d07aa/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 08:58:48 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:58:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] GAID Open COnsultation - webcatsed and
 remoteparticipation modalities
Message-ID: <200805271258.m4RCwjWd000615@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

This is to remind you that the open consultation of the Global Alliance for
ICT and Development is taking place in Room A (ITU Headquarters).

As indicated in the invitation letter and agenda (hereby attached), the
meeting will be web-casted and remote participation will be provided:

 

-          For the web cast please see
http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/200805cluster/index.html 

-          A conference call facility will be at the disposal of the remote
users from 15:00 to 18:00. The call in number is 00 41 22 9170900 + code pin
51692.

 

Sorry for the last minute notice but we just received the information today.

 

Best, 

 

Philippe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/7800adba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: invite_openconsultation.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 504924 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/7800adba/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00179.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080527/7800adba/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 09:55:25 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:55:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] GAID Open COnsultation - webcatsed and
 remoteparticipation modalities
In-Reply-To: <200805271258.m4RCwjWd000615@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
References: <200805271258.m4RCwjWd000615@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <ED90970C-0C9E-4681-9DE9-16CE336551B7@psg.com>

hi,

This is fantastic.

Thanks.

a.

On 27 May 2008, at 08:58, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This is to remind you that the open consultation of the Global  
> Alliance for ICT and Development is taking place in Room A (ITU  
> Headquarters).
> As indicated in the invitation letter and agenda (hereby attached),  
> the meeting will be web-casted and remote participation will be  
> provided:
>
> -          For the web cast please see http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/200805cluster/index.html
> -          A conference call facility will be at the disposal of the  
> remote users from 15:00 to 18:00. The call in number is 00 41 22  
> 9170900 + code pin 51692.
>
> Sorry for the last minute notice but we just received the  
> information today.
>
> Best,
>
> Philippe
> <invite_openconsultation.pdf><ATT00179.txt>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 11:20:27 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:20:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <p0624080fc46034c5f639@[221.115.9.42]>

Ian, thanks for this note.  I was travelling last 
week and this thread and the one about Civil 
Society Professionals have been hard to keep up 
with.

I don't particularly like this notion of a 
conflict of interest that excludes some from 
consideration by the caucus nomcom, and said so 
while we were discussing criteria and process the 
nomcom should follow.  But I was in a minority 
then and the description in the nomcom report 
seems to me to be consistent with what I remember 
of general opinion on the list. It follows that 
general consensus. I think the outcome is fair 
and the process has been pretty straight. 
Particularly given that (1) the caucus has made 
clear it does not consider it's the only CS 
entity with a right to submit names, others of 
course can do so, and (2) obviously the Internet 
technical community would be making its own 
recommendations.

In 2006 it was not clear there would be a tech 
community, and the caucus recommendations at that 
time included one person from an RIR. Given the 
tech community now has its own process (right? 
Can someone describe it?) and there are more MAG 
members from the tech community than CS (yes, 
many of us overlap in our interests, but I think 
we know people well enough to know where they are 
on a spectrum, and those of us who are members of 
the MAG have seen general alignments) I don't see 
why the caucus shouldn't focus on people who are 
more clearly identified with CS interests as they 
have developed through WSIS and IGF to date.

Which leads to a next point... CS has been 
running an open process (and now open criticism), 
where is the same process from the technical 
community? We have all agreed to improve 
transparency, is CS the only one to bother?

It's often the case that civil society processes 
get messy because they are so open. People get 
angry and frustrated (I know I do.)  So I'm 
wondering where is the tech community's open 
process: is someone coordinating names?  Who? 
What process was used? How was that process 
agreed? Who has been recommended? Were people 
from other interest groups considered? Were 
people from other interest groups recommended 
(was I considered/recommended :-) )

George, McTim, Suresh: you've made a fuss over CS 
process (I think wrongly, it was consistent with 
discussion on the list that informed the nomcom), 
could you tell us about the tech community's 
process.  Please.

Thanks,

Adam




>Raul wrote (and I agree)
>
>  >My point is that it is impossible to set up formal election mechanism base
>  >in the strict classification in 3 stakeholders group if later some
>  >organizartions/people are out of that classification.
>
>
>Agreed! Rather we should acknowledge that there really are four
>classifications, and the technical community is a stakeholder in itself. I
>don't think that is going to change this time around, and it certainly was a
>consideration in first round MAG appointments. A case in point being your
>own appointment Raul - to me absolutely worthy and I hope you are
>re-appointed - but your nomination did not come from this civil society
>list. Nor did those of the ISOC, ICANN, and other technical community reps
>on the MAG).
>
>
>If you acknowledge the reality of a fourth stakeholder in IGF, you can
>understand why some civil society members may not want part of its limited
>number of seats going to representatives of another group. So in fact this
>whole debate really reflects whether a fourth stakeholder group exists or
>does not exist - not some conspiracy to deny basic human rights on the
>grounds of employment as has been characterized.
>
>Looks to me from MAG representation and documentation from IGF meetings that
>the fourth group does exist, has nominated candidates in the past, and will
>again this time. (BTW if anyone here can point me to the open transparent
>processes via which ISOC, ICANN and other technical community nominations to
>this or last round of MAG were made, I'd be very interested to have a look!)
>
>An alternative of course to the current lobbying by all parties to increase
>their share of the spoils is to have three strict divisions, three official
>forums, and then insist that ISOC ICANN and the like nominate via one or the
>other. They of course would not be happy with this. Nor should they. The
>ISOC representation might be debatable if we have nothing better to do, but
>RIR representation and ICANN representation to me should be a given.
>
>As agreed earlier by this Caucus after the last round of discussions on
>this,
>
>"We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
>administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards
>should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
>should not be at the expense of civil society participation".
>
>That I believe was the intention of those NomCom people who advocated this
>position. As stated in the report, not everyone agreed. Now its up to the
>Caucus to determine whether it wants to adopt a policy position here.
>
>
>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: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
>>  Sent: 25 May 2008 23:50
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: RE: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
>>
>>  At 05:41 p.m. 23/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>  > > -----Original Message-----
>>  > > From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
>  > > >
>>  > > Your email goes directly to the key point. You
>>  > > are deffending the idea that it is impossible to
>>  > > set up formal nomination process due to the fact
>>  > > that some part of the community would not be
>>  > > represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.
>>  >
>>  >That was not the exact point I was making, but it is one worth making. A
>>  >discussion of that point would be more productive than an attack on the
>>  >Nomcom report.
>>
>>  Of course. In fact I am not interested in
>>  attacking the Nomcom report, but discussing the concepts behind their
>>  behavior.
>>  My point is that it is impossible to set up
>>  formal election mechanism base in the strict
>>  classification in 3 stakeholders group if later
>>  some organizartions/people are out of that classification.
>>
>>
>>  > > Other important things is that you remark the
>>  > > fact that this caucus nominates people to
>>  > > represent strictly the caucus itself, what is
>>  > > another very frank statement that avoid any
>>  > > intention of representing a broader community than the own caucus.
>>  >
>>  >Yes, that was indeed my main point. Our nominations reflect IGC
>>  >preferences. We lack the institutional capacity to claim that those
>>  >preferences represent the whole of "civil society" on a global scale.
>>  >But at least we are an open, CS caucus.
>>
>>  The list is open, no doubt. There is a doubt
>>  about the openess of the caucus, since the nomcom
>>  has taken some criteria that exclude people from the list.
>>  I don't think that this is unfair, but it is
>>  necessary to define better what this caucus is.
>>  The caucus seems to be: all of those that
>>  consider themselves as civil society
>>  organizations or people except those that work for ........
>>  This is at least a not clear criteria.
>>
>>
>>  >  Just like the RIRs claim to
>  > >represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
>  > >because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
>>  >portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
>>  >processes.
>>
>>  You are wrong on this point. The RIRs don't claim
>>  in anyway to represent the Internet community.
>>  Speaking for LACNIC, this is very very far from
>>  our view. If you find any document in our website
>>  that say somethink like that or let anybody to
>>  intepret that, please advice me because we have to change it immediately.
>>  I have to say that I have never heard that the
>>  RIRs are representatives of the Internet Community.
>>
>>
>>  ><this section moved>
>>  >
>>  > > The discussion about the existence of 3, 4 or 5
>  > > > stakeholders groups is, in my opinion, not very
>>  > > important while we ensure that the IGF
>  > > > Secretariat take care of the multiples
>>  > > necessaries balances in their recommendations and
>>  > > the UN Secretary General take care of the same
>>  > > things at the time of taking decisions about the
>>  > > MAG composition.
>>  >
>>  >I myself would prefer to have a truly bottom-up representational
>>  >process, rather than a top-down process in which people lobby the
>>  >Secretariat and UN S-G to make sure they are represented. It seems to me
>>  >that the lobbying process would only favor stronger economic vested
>>  >interests.
>>
>>  The discussion in this list is demonstrating that
>>  it is impossible. Who should appoint people on
>>  representation of CS? this list? it represents
>>  very partially the interests of the CSO. Regional
>>  caucuses? it would be a much better approach, it
>  > would be much more representative of the reality.
>>  The regional caucus, at least in LAC region, has
>>  proven to have a very different criteria for
>>  selecting their candidates to the MAG than the IGC.
>>  But anyway many people could still claim for not
>>  being represented trought such system.
>>
>>  How many stakeholders group would we need?
>>  because there is a strong opposition to revisit
>>  this issue while it is clear that the strict 3
>>  groups definition leave many people in a confussing situation.
>>
>>
>>  > >  It doesn't matter if the
>>  > > academic community is a stakeholder or not if we
>>  > > are confident that there will be people from this
>>  > > community in the MAG, same happen with many other
>  > > > organizations and inteests' groups.
>>  >
>>  >True, but how can I be confident that the representative of "academia"
>>  >chosen by a remote Secretariat or SG will represent academics who are
>>  >engaged and informed about internet governance? One can find academics
>>  >on any side of a policy issue. It would not make me happy, e.g., to put
>>  >Professor John Yoo on the MAG.** How can an "academic" be held
>>  >accountable if his or her appointment came from the top and not from
>>  >cultivating political support on the bottom? Isn't it possible that
>>  >powerful interest groups would lobby the UN SG and others to put their
>>  >pet academics on and to exclude more critical ones?
>>
>>  Mmmm. It would not happen since the IGF Sec is
>>  under a big public scrutiny. But anyway you, and
>>  all of course, have to accept that there could be
>>  people from the same stakeholder group than you
>>  with very different views. The reality is much
>>  more diverse and complex that some would like.
>>
>>
>>  > > It is another key issue, because it is important
>>  > > to understand that there are multiple nomination
>>  > > channels, even for the same stakeholder group,
>>  > > and nominations like the  IGC recommendations is just one of them.
>>  >
>>  >Yes, so we seem to agree on the fact that IGC nominations are of limited
>>  >impact and that there are at the moment many other channels. And for the
>>  >time being, that is fine.
>>  >
>>  >But we do not agree on the more fundamental point: I would not be
>>  >satisfied with relying on the discretion of the UN SG or Secretariat
>>  >over the longer term. I would prefer to see a real bottom up
>>  >representational structure set up.
>>
>>  I have already demonstrated that it is impossible
>>  while other previous discussions are not solved before.
>  >
>>
>>  >And perhaps we both agree that the composition of the MAG is not all
>  > >that important, as long as it is balanced.
>>  >
>>  >Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
>>  >and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of goals
>>  >and plans.
>>
>>  Maybe it is not a crazy idea.
>>
>>
>>  Raúl
>>
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>  Checked by AVG.
>  > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
>>  3:51 PM
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Tue May 27 11:24:57 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:54:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <p0624080fc46034c5f639@[221.115.9.42]>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <p0624080fc46034c5f639@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net>

> George, McTim, Suresh: you've made a fuss over CS
> process (I think wrongly, it was consistent with
> discussion on the list that informed the nomcom),
> could you tell us about the tech community's
> process.  Please.

If you can tell me just where the technical community is caucusing and
submitting joint nominations that'd be an interesting thing. Looks like we
have individuals standing .. and gaining nominations from people who have
worked / interacted with 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue May 27 11:27:26 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:27:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To:  <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>

>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
>>  No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
>>  Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
>  > Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
>>  embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.
>
>A major issue, of course.


Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your 
dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
and MAG stepped in.


>But can you provide me with an instance of when the MAG did anything to
>check the power of the Secretariat?


Milton, It doesn't help when your phrase questions in this way.


>  I am open to facts.


Have you read the MAG mailing list records and the meeting reports?

The secretariat takes contributions, summarizes them and publishes 
them for comment. The MAG comments, pretty much anyone (at least 
English speakers, sorry to say) can comment. The process of taking 
contributions then continues (idea of rolling documents.)  When MAG 
members are unhappy with the way a meeting has been summarized or a 
report etc written then we can and do comment, and if the objection's 
sensible changes are made. And sometimes the MAG screws up 
(Parminder's concern over how access was described in the programme 
last year, which I insist was not important and an accident, but he 
feels strongly otherwise, but we disagree... was a screw up) and 
misses things, but nothing deliberate or underhand to the best of my 
knowledge/recollection. I think you can see the contributions 
reflected in the outcomes (the annual meeting, the themes, speakers, 
workshops etc.)

The secretariat will take names for speakers, and seems to have come 
discretion here.  It may invite some people it thinks important, and 
does not always consult with MAG before doing that. Sometimes this 
seems to be because of time pressures, or just opportunities (the 
person's in the room, ask them).  This is the only area I have ever 
felt uncomfortable with the secretariat's "powers", and it might not 
be that anything bad was happening, selecting speakers is sensitive. 
I think it will be less of an issue this year now we've more time.

It seems the secretariat may have some influence (perhaps a lot) in 
what names are put forward to the secretary general for MAG rotation, 
I imagine given the need for balance and also increasing gender and 
developing country representation someone will need to recommend 
slates of some kind.  I doubt there's anyone in New York with 
knowledge of the people and organizations able to make good 
decisions.  As we seem to agree there should be an open called for 
names, someone has to receive those names and develop a slate. I 
don't see how the MAG can check the secretariat's powers in this, in 
the end it's up to the community.


>  > It is also easier for the Secretariat to palm off the recommendations
>  > of the open consultations to the Secretary-General (a fiction, of
>>  course) so that it can disclaim responsibility for the dismissal of
>>  those recommendations.
>
>Yes, that obviously happens now. And the MAG as far as I know never
>issues any recommendations.


As Avri said.  Not a fiction. It's the way the UN works.  Governments 
asked the UN Secretary-General to convene it and convene it he does.

<http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf> See 
paragraph 3, and then read the press release about rotation.

And this : <http://www.intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.16.05.2008.final.pdf>?




>So I am unclear as to how this point bears
>on the question. When has there been a clear resolution of the advisory
>group? When has the Secretariat followed such a resolution when it
>didn't really want to?
>
>>  Harder for it to ignore a clear resolution of
>>  the Advisory Group, whose numbers and constituencies are known and
>>  fixed.  (Still not impossible, though; case in point, the Chairman
>>  shutting down discussion within the Advisory Group of any variation to
>  > the 50% representation of governments.)



Note Chair, not Secretariat. Not the same thing.


>But note that this shutdown occurred in the context of a
>representational quota for the MAG. If there were no MAG, there would be
>no such debates.


Thanks,

Adam


>  > For all its manifest faults, at least the Advisory Group, now that it
>>  has increased its transparency thorough reports of its meetings and
>>  mailing list summaries, is somewhat more accountable than the
>>  Secretariat alone.
>
>I guess the conclusion I would draw from your comments is, if we want to
>have a MAG it should not be such a loose advisory group but should have
>formally defined powers in relation to the Secretariat. If the MAG does
>not have those powers, it is definitely not worth all the political fuss
>that surrounds it.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue May 27 12:00:12 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:00:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8A4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 

> >But can you provide me with an instance of when the MAG did 
> >anything to
> >check the power of the Secretariat?
> 
> Milton, It doesn't help when your phrase questions in this way.

Apologies, I guess; Jeremy said that the MAG acted as a check on the
Secretariat and I simply asked when it had done so. If it is the word
"power" that scares you I mean it in the most mundane sense: control of
the administrative details that have a major impact on the way the Forum
functions. 

You described the way the Secretariat acts and it is clear that it has a
great deal of discretion over various things. But IGF is a small,
under-resourced and newly developing institution so this is not
surprising. Your description seems to confirm my sense that the MAG can
express objections or support for things but ultimately the decision
rests with the Secretariat or the Chair. I hope we are all mature enough
to avoid the implication that any discussion of checks and balances
implies mistrust or criticism of the specific people in the Secretariat.
It's a structural issue. 

> Have you read the MAG mailing list records and the meeting reports?

Yes.
 
> It seems the secretariat may have some influence (perhaps a lot) in 
> what names are put forward to the secretary general for MAG rotation, 
> I imagine given the need for balance and also increasing gender and 
> developing country representation someone will need to recommend 
> slates of some kind.  I doubt there's anyone in New York with 
> knowledge of the people and organizations able to make good 
> decisions.  As we seem to agree there should be an open called for 
> names, someone has to receive those names and develop a slate. I 
> don't see how the MAG can check the secretariat's powers in this, in 
> the end it's up to the community.

I have no idea what you mean by "up to the community" and you can expect
those of us with deeper and long-term knowledge of political and policy
making processes to _never_ be satisfied with such explanations. The
IETF term "hand-waving" comes to mind. ;-) 

Anyway, what is your opinion of the question in the header: do we need a
MAG? Is it worth all the fuss? Can the Secretariat set up more open
processes for creating agendas and speaker lists? 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue May 27 12:13:10 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:13:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]>

I'm glad Adam raised this point.  There was a set of people, working 
in collaboration with Kieren and Avri and others (sorry, i don't 
remember the exact names), on tools for remote participation.  we had 
identified tools, and had an implementation and testing plan, and 
then because of conflicts in a larger group, the entire effort was 
dropped.

The group continued under jeremy's leadership.  Jeremy, what has 
happened to that dynamic coalition?  Have you made any progress?  The 
goal is an important one.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:27 AM +0900 5/28/08, Adam Peake wrote:
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
>>>  No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
>>>  Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
>>  > Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
>>>  embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.
>>
>>A major issue, of course.
>
>
>Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your 
>dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
>and MAG stepped in.
>

..........etc.................
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue May 27 12:45:43 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:45:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
 <p0624080fc46034c5f639@[221.115.9.42]>
 <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net>
Message-ID: <p0620075dc461e20c4238@[10.0.1.2]>

Adam,

There is a loose group of people involved in the Internet who discuss 
matters of Internet governance from time to time via e-mail and 
teleconferences.  Those of us who are attend MAG meetings are a part 
of that group.

However, with regard to any formal caucusing and submitting joint 
nominations, I am not certain that it is happening.  As you know, the 
technical community consists of a lot of individuals who are involved 
with various organizations. Some of those organizations manage 
critical Internet  resources; others do not.

As has been mentioned on the list by someone recently (Suresh? McTim? 
Karl?), the Internet technical community is not and does not see 
itself as a coherent, homogeneous body, except insofar as they have 
and share various aspects of the technical knowledge to assist in the 
Internet's proper functioning through their various professional 
roles.

If there is any group that represents the Internet community, it's 
the IETF, and then I doubt that it would claim to do so, with the 
possible exception of  matters of technical protocols.   To 
illustrate the looseness of the structure, the IETF is not even an 
organization in any formal sense; it haws no status as a legal 
entity.  Beyond that, I don't think any group claims to represent the 
Internet community in any formal sense.

No doubt there are people involved in the Internet who are 
recommending names to the IGF Secretariat for MAG slots, as well as 
for IGF speakers and possibly for other roles also.  But AFAIK there 
is not a concerted attempt to caucus together to try to select a 
slate for the MAG.

The technical community does something else that I think is much 
better.  All of the core organizations in that community have open 
meetings that anyone can attend.  Markus has participated in quite a 
few of those meetings, so he can observe certain of its organizations 
in action, thereby informing himself better of the structure of at 
least a part of that community, the actors who operate within it, and 
what and how well they do.  Through this process, Markus is better 
able to make informed judgements regarding the kind of persons, and 
perhaps some of the persons themselves, who would be effective 
members of that community to participate in the MAG.

I have generally found that the best predictor of what an individual 
will do in the future is to look at what that individual has done in 
the past.   By making the activities, processes, goals, and problems 
of Internet institutions open to Markus (and BTW to anyone else who 
wants to participate), I believe that he is better enabled to make 
good choices for the MAG.

I think I've captured reasonably well what we are doing, and I' like 
my colleagues to weigh in if they feel I have missed, misstated or 
overstated anything.

If you think this isn't transparent, then the way to fix it is to 
have the Secretariat publish a list of all names submitted, since 
other groups and individuals are also submitting names.

I would advise against this.  Rather, I feel that the caucus' 
methodology in choosing names to submit exhibits enormous overkill 
and is an attempt to be incredibly pure and correct (and time 
consuming) in the process.  Does the result really justify it?  The 
Secretariat is going to make the final choice anyway; isn't it better 
just to take actions that enable it to do a competent and informed 
job -- assuming that one trusts it to do so?

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 8:54 PM +0530 5/27/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>  > George, McTim, Suresh: you've made a fuss over CS
>>  process (I think wrongly, it was consistent with
>>  discussion on the list that informed the nomcom),
>>  could you tell us about the tech community's
>>  process.  Please.
>
>If you can tell me just where the technical community is caucusing and
>submitting joint nominations that'd be an interesting thing. Looks like we
>have individuals standing .. and gaining nominations from people who have
>worked / interacted with 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue May 27 13:04:16 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:04:16 +0300
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <p0624080fc46034c5f639@221.115.9.42>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
	 <p0624080fc46034c5f639@221.115.9.42>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805271004v393ccc5ag729407bbd10fa8e4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
<snip>
 I don't see why the caucus shouldn't focus on
> people who are more clearly identified with CS interests as they have
> developed through WSIS and IGF to date.
>

I suggest that the interests of the technical community ARE CS
interests, all the heat and noise around ICANN on this list bear this
out.


> Which leads to a next point... CS has been running an open process

Well, except for the nomcom ignoring our rules.

(and now
> open criticism), where is the same process from the technical community?

It's not about them, or government or the PS.  You and I haven't
signed on to the charter of those mailing lists (if they exist), but
we HAVE signed on to the charter of this list.

Now, we either amend the charter as I have suggested, or we amend it
to say "no technical community allowed to represent us".  If we do
nothing, we are telling future nomcom that it's ok to disregard the
notion of equality in our charter when they make decisions.

We
> have all agreed to improve transparency, is CS the only one to bother?
>
> It's often the case that civil society processes get messy because they are
> so open.

except for our nomcom, who didn't report back as required.

People get angry and frustrated (I know I do.)  So I'm wondering
> where is the tech community's open process: is someone coordinating names?
>  Who? What process was used? How was that process agreed? Who has been
> recommended? Were people from other interest groups considered? Were people
> from other interest groups recommended (was I considered/recommended :-) )
>

See George's reply above, he is far more eloquent than I could hope to be.

> George, McTim, Suresh: you've made a fuss over CS process (I think wrongly,
> it was consistent with discussion on the list that informed the nomcom),
> could you tell us about the tech community's process.

In general, yes.  They are open, transparent, archived, freely
available discussions where in my experience, no one has ever been
excluded from a position of responsibility because they work for
someone a very small group of politically motivated folk don't agree
with.

Oh, and they make decisions by consensus, not by a slim majority, as
appeared to be the case in our nomcom.

-- 
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  Tue May 27 17:21:26 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:21:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> 
> Call it a disrespectful interface to an uncivil society.... 
> 
> I'll look forward to pointing out in great detail the flaws 
> of whatever "panel" you put together at the IGF. Hyderabad is only an 
> hour away by air from where I live, so that should be easier for me
than 
> traveling to Rio.

Suresh:
Thanks for the clarity. Your response, especially the promise to find
flaws in a panel you haven't even seen yet simply because I have
organized it, communicates perfectly the purely personal animosity that
drives your remarks on this list. While this may give you some measure
of emotional satisfaction, let me remind you that the list is devoted to
policy development and discussion. Hope you can find the maturity to
refrain from burdening the rest of us with your issues. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ginger at paque.net  Tue May 27 18:27:52 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:57:52 -0430
Subject: [governance] RE: Remote Participation
In-Reply-To: <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <483c8af0.0609c00a.7ab7.ffffc98f@mx.google.com>

Dear George and all,

There are several initiatives currently in progress for remote participation
at the IGF 2008. Jeremy has reactivated the Remote Participation DC,
although he would have to tell us what the latest developments are. I
understand Avri has been working on some concrete possibilities. There is
also an "IGF Remote Participation Working Group" researching possibilities
for video, audio and chat participation, as well as remote hub
participation, which I am involved with. There are several remote hub
conference points already being planned, for instance in Brazil, UK and
Egypt, and we hope to include at least one hub on each continent.

Other projects are going on but I do not know much about them. I think it is
true that resources are not being used to greatest possible effectiveness,
and we are most certainly duplicating efforts. Although the Secretariat
fully supports our effort and others, we have been unable to coordinate
effectively with them or the host country.

The difference we see between our working group and the DC is that we are a
hands-on WG with a specific practical purpose of constructing remote
participation for IGF 2008, whereas the DC includes much wider goals,
including theoretical and policy issues.


If anyone is interested in more information on our WG, please contact focal
point Marilia Maciel, or myself. I assume the same holds true for Jeremy and
Avri.

Ginger Paque

-----Mensaje original-----
De: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
Enviado el: Martes, 27 de Mayo de 2008 11:43 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
Asunto: Re: [governance] Do we need a MAG?

I'm glad Adam raised this point.  There was a set of people, working 
in collaboration with Kieren and Avri and others (sorry, i don't 
remember the exact names), on tools for remote participation.  we had 
identified tools, and had an implementation and testing plan, and 
then because of conflicts in a larger group, the entire effort was 
dropped.

The group continued under jeremy's leadership.  Jeremy, what has 
happened to that dynamic coalition?  Have you made any progress?  The 
goal is an important one.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:27 AM +0900 5/28/08, Adam Peake wrote:
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
>>>  No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
>>>  Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
>>  > Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
>>>  embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.
>>
>>A major issue, of course.
>
>
>Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your 
>dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
>and MAG stepped in.
>

..........etc.................
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue May 27 18:38:21 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:38:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <483C8D5D.8050103@apc.org>

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

He seems to be in the position of the prophet
Jeremiah here, making these dire predictions that you're not getting the
meaning of. If you have read previous posts on his blog, you would know 
that this is in
no way different from the views he normally holds, and frankly expresses.

The fact that this post of Veni's is no different from his previous 
posts goes to the point that I am making about classic propaganda 
techniques.Repetition is a feature of such techniques. I fully 
comprehend Veni's posts and find them offensive.

I would react with shock to see that what is ALSO a bitter criticism
of icann is being interpreted as a swiftboating campaign somehow engineered
by ICANN/ISOC PR

I am not saying that ICANN/ISOC are engineering a swiftboat campaign. I 
am saying that Veni as an ICANN staffer is not sufficiently 
differentiated from ICANN to be saying such offensive things purely in 
his private capacity without an association being created - to the 
detriment of ICANN's image. This is not a bitter criticism of ICANN - if 
anyone from ICANN is reading this post, I am pointing out that loose 
cannons like Veni, who deploy crude propagandist smears repetitively 
create a perception of ICANN by association which is not good for 
ICANN's PR strategy.

willie


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue May 27 18:52:22 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:52:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>
Message-ID: <483C90A6.30809@apc.org>

Milton wrote:

I still don't know the answer to these questions:
> 

>> > > >Are you a member of IGC? I.e., have you signed the charter?
>>     
> 
> A simple yes or no would suffice here.
> 

> 
> Here is another question you did not answer:
> 

>> > > >Is your participation in caucus discussion intended to strengthen
>>     
> our

>> > > >ability to build a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
>> > > >representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance
>> > > >processes?
>>     
> 
> Again, a simple yes or no would suffice.

I would also be interested in Suresh's answer to these two questions of 
Milton.

willie
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 19:50:27 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:50:27 -0700
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <483C8D5D.8050103@apc.org>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net> <483C8D5D.8050103@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080527235027.GA12918@hserus.net>

Willie Currie [27/05/08 18:38 -0400]:
> The fact that this post of Veni's is no different from his previous  
> posts goes to the point that I am making about classic propaganda  
> techniques.Repetition is a feature of such techniques. I fully  
> comprehend Veni's posts and find them offensive.

The difference between this and propaganda is that

1. A consistent position is advocated
2. There's truth and conviction backing it

You might want to take a look at the average moveon.org email / swift
boat press release for something that IS propaganda, and that reads quite
differently from this.

> anyone from ICANN is reading this post, I am pointing out that loose  
> cannons like Veni, who deploy crude propagandist smears repetitively  
> create a perception of ICANN by association which is not good for  
> ICANN's PR strategy.

Yes, but Veni is one of the very few people who backs criticism with actual
work done / actions taken. He's done excellent work in eastern europe.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 19:58:50 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:58:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <p0620075dc461e20c4238@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <p0624080fc46034c5f639@[221.115.9.42]> <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net> <p0620075dc461e20c4238@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <20080527235850.GB12918@hserus.net>

George Sadowsky [27/05/08 12:45 -0400]:
> However, with regard to any formal caucusing and submitting joint  
> nominations, I am not certain that it is happening.  As you know, the  
> technical community consists of a lot of individuals who are involved  
> with various organizations. Some of those organizations manage critical 
> Internet  resources; others do not.

I must thank George for making all these points here.

> I would advise against this.  Rather, I feel that the caucus'  
> methodology in choosing names to submit exhibits enormous overkill and is 

I wont argue with the nomcomm method this caucus is following. I will take
issue with the way it has been implemented this time around.

A highly unnecessary amount of bias has been introduced into the process.

	suresh
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Tue May 27 20:01:07 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:01:07 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Remote Participation
In-Reply-To: <483c8af0.0609c00a.7ab7.ffffc98f@mx.google.com>
References: <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]> <483c8af0.0609c00a.7ab7.ffffc98f@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <20080528000107.GC12918@hserus.net>

Ginger Paque [27/05/08 17:57 -0430]:
>The difference we see between our working group and the DC is that we are a
>hands-on WG with a specific practical purpose of constructing remote
>participation for IGF 2008, whereas the DC includes much wider goals,
>including theoretical and policy issues.

Which will make the working group work, and produce results, where this
particular DC gets bogged down splitting hairs on theory and policy.

I wish you all the best, Ginger.

	suresh
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Tue May 27 20:04:16 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:04:16 -0700
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net>

If the panel you are going to organize here is on the same lines as

1. Your circleid posts
2. your "IGP position papers"
3. Your panel at Athens, which I saw

I can quite probably predict what's going to be laid on in Hyderabad

But I digress. I think you are a disruptive influence to IG at large. I
simply try to disrupt your influence right back.  Not because I detest you,
more for the greater good of this process.

Milton L Mueller [27/05/08 17:21 -0400]:
>Suresh:
>Thanks for the clarity. Your response, especially the promise to find
>flaws in a panel you haven't even seen yet simply because I have
>organized it, communicates perfectly the purely personal animosity that
>drives your remarks on this list. While this may give you some measure
>of emotional satisfaction, let me remind you that the list is devoted to
>policy development and discussion. Hope you can find the maturity to
>refrain from burdening the rest of us with your issues. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wcurrie at apc.org  Tue May 27 20:38:25 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:38:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net>
References: <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <483CA981.30405@apc.org>

Hmm, Suresh, this starts to look like some kind of swift boat activity 
on your part.

willie

 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> If the panel you are going to organize here is on the same lines as
>
> 1. Your circleid posts
> 2. your "IGP position papers"
> 3. Your panel at Athens, which I saw
>
> I can quite probably predict what's going to be laid on in Hyderabad
>
> But I digress. I think you are a disruptive influence to IG at large. I
> simply try to disrupt your influence right back.  Not because I detest 
> you,
> more for the greater good of this process.
>
> Milton L Mueller [27/05/08 17:21 -0400]:
>> Suresh:
>> Thanks for the clarity. Your response, especially the promise to find
>> flaws in a panel you haven't even seen yet simply because I have
>> organized it, communicates perfectly the purely personal animosity that
>> drives your remarks on this list. While this may give you some measure
>> of emotional satisfaction, let me remind you that the list is devoted to
>> policy development and discussion. Hope you can find the maturity to
>> refrain from burdening the rest of us with your issues. 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 20:44:08 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:44:08 -0700
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <483CA981.30405@apc.org>
References: <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net> <483CA981.30405@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080528004408.GA14009@hserus.net>

Willie Currie [27/05/08 20:38 -0400]:
> Hmm, Suresh, this starts to look like some kind of swift boat activity  
> on your part.

That's so rich.

What would I get in return, Willie? Tenure at Syracuse? Chairmanship of the
ICANN board?

	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 wcurrie at apc.org  Tue May 27 20:53:50 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:53:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080527235027.GA12918@hserus.net>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net> <483C8D5D.8050103@apc.org> <20080527235027.GA12918@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <483CAD1E.2020306@apc.org>

Veni is the first to remind us of the excellent work he has done in 
Eastern Europe, which is another repetitive refrain of his, that seems 
designed to provide anchorage for his offensive attacks on civil 
society. Propaganda always mixes a bit of truth in with its excesses and 
the conviction that one is absolutely right is one of its leitmotifs.

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Willie Currie [27/05/08 18:38 -0400]:
>> The fact that this post of Veni's is no different from his previous  
>> posts goes to the point that I am making about classic propaganda  
>> techniques.Repetition is a feature of such techniques. I fully  
>> comprehend Veni's posts and find them offensive.
>
> The difference between this and propaganda is that
>
> 1. A consistent position is advocated
> 2. There's truth and conviction backing it
>
> You might want to take a look at the average moveon.org email / swift
> boat press release for something that IS propaganda, and that reads quite
> differently from this.
>
>> anyone from ICANN is reading this post, I am pointing out that loose  
>> cannons like Veni, who deploy crude propagandist smears repetitively  
>> create a perception of ICANN by association which is not good for  
>> ICANN's PR strategy.
>
> Yes, but Veni is one of the very few people who backs criticism with 
> actual
> work done / actions taken. He's done excellent work in eastern europe.
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 20:59:47 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:59:47 -0700
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <483CAD1E.2020306@apc.org>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net> <483C8D5D.8050103@apc.org> <20080527235027.GA12918@hserus.net> <483CAD1E.2020306@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080528005947.GA14155@hserus.net>

Willie Currie [27/05/08 20:53 -0400]:
> Veni is the first to remind us of the excellent work he has done in  
> Eastern Europe, which is another repetitive refrain of his, that seems  
> designed to provide anchorage for his offensive attacks on civil  
> society. Propaganda always mixes a bit of truth in with its excesses and  
> the conviction that one is absolutely right is one of its leitmotifs.

Catch a propagandist doing excellent work?

Moveon.org for example? Or the swift boat idiots?

	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 wcurrie at apc.org  Tue May 27 21:03:59 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:03:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <20080528004408.GA14009@hserus.net>
References: <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net> <483CA981.30405@apc.org> <20080528004408.GA14009@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <483CAF7F.70600@apc.org>

I'm not saying you are acting on behalf of ICANN, Suresh, but when you 
call for better relations between the technical community and civil 
society, you undercut your rhetoric by swift boat type activity similar 
to Veni's when he was a member of this list. The point is neither you 
nor Veni do the technical community any favours through hostile attacks.

willie

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Willie Currie [27/05/08 20:38 -0400]:
>> Hmm, Suresh, this starts to look like some kind of swift boat 
>> activity  on your part.
>
> That's so rich.
>
> What would I get in return, Willie? Tenure at Syracuse? Chairmanship 
> of the
> ICANN board?
>
>     srs
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wcurrie at apc.org  Tue May 27 21:26:32 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:26:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <20080528005947.GA14155@hserus.net>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net> <483C8D5D.8050103@apc.org> <20080527235027.GA12918@hserus.net> <483CAD1E.2020306@apc.org> <20080528005947.GA14155@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <483CB4C8.1090206@apc.org>

Veni wrote in his Civil Society Professionals blog:

Events like this can change many people*. One of the best ways to “test” 
someone, is to give them some power or authority. People who change, 
while in power, they will be the best candidates to join the IG-CSP group.

* - Let me share some personal perspective - for me being member of the 
Boards of ICANN, ISOC, CPSR, etc. has never made me feel special. For me 
it was just heavy work, lots of duties and responsibilities. Less sleep 
and more travel. I’ve never considered myself a different (special, 
privileged) person from the one I was, and I am, just because I was or I 
am sitting on a Board. I’ve found more value in heading the Bulgarian 
Internet Society, because we were leading the Internet revolution in 
Bulgaria. We’ve done a number of things for the first time in our 
country, and that is what made us think with relief, “OK, we did what we 
could; we achieved something. If someone else could have done better - 
please.”

Veni makes a proposition that people who change when in positions of 
power or authority fail his test and are corrupt and are therefore 
eligible candidates for his IG-CSP group. In his footnote, he carefully 
makes sure to demonstrate that he is not someone who changes, and 
therefore cannot be a member of the IG-CSF group he denigrates. The 
excellence of his work for ISOC in Bulgaria has little to do with the 
rhetorical manoevres he is pulling here in the service of his hostile 
attack on civil society.

willie

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Willie Currie [27/05/08 20:53 -0400]:
>> Veni is the first to remind us of the excellent work he has done in 
>> Eastern Europe, which is another repetitive refrain of his, that 
>> seems designed to provide anchorage for his offensive attacks on 
>> civil society. Propaganda always mixes a bit of truth in with its 
>> excesses and the conviction that one is absolutely right is one of 
>> its leitmotifs.
>
> Catch a propagandist doing excellent work?
>
> Moveon.org for example? Or the swift boat idiots?
>
> srs
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Tue May 27 21:33:55 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:33:55 -0700
Subject: [governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?
In-Reply-To: <483CB4C8.1090206@apc.org>
References: <1611464208-1211573432-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1367149986-@bxe108.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080524020853.GC17858@hserus.net> <483C8D5D.8050103@apc.org> <20080527235027.GA12918@hserus.net> <483CAD1E.2020306@apc.org> <20080528005947.GA14155@hserus.net> <483CB4C8.1090206@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080528013355.GA14402@hserus.net>

Willie Currie [27/05/08 21:26 -0400]:
> Events like this can change many people*. One of the best ways to ?test?  
> someone, is to give them some power or authority. People who change,  
> while in power, they will be the best candidates to join the IG-CSP 
> group.

[...]

He is only paraphrasing Lord Acton .. "Power corrupts, Absolute power
corrupts absolutely"

I dont see how that constitutes an attack on CS. And I've seen enough
genuine CS people attacking "fake CS" groups that exist solely as ways to
convert grant money into a lavish lifestyle, or that are founded solely to
further a specific propaganda goal.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 27 21:36:25 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:36:25 -0700
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <483CAF7F.70600@apc.org>
References: <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net> <483CA981.30405@apc.org> <20080528004408.GA14009@hserus.net> <483CAF7F.70600@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080528013625.GB14402@hserus.net>

Willie Currie [27/05/08 21:03 -0400]:
> I'm not saying you are acting on behalf of ICANN, Suresh, but when you  
> call for better relations between the technical community and civil  
> society, you undercut your rhetoric by swift boat type activity similar  
> to Veni's when he was a member of this list. The point is neither you  
> nor Veni do the technical community any favours through hostile attacks.

Let's just put it this way. I'm not hostile to Sadowski, Adam, Ian Peter,
Meryem etc. Or even to you.

I simply counter propaganda (and IGP white papers are just that). And in
some cases I call a spade a spade, and identify na�vet� for what it is..

Please dont mistake plain speech (and Veni's speech is that) for
propaganda.

	srs
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue May 27 22:20:22 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:20:22 +0800
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>

On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

>>> No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
>>> Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
>>> Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
>>> embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.
>>
>> A major issue, of course.
>
> Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your  
> dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat  
> and MAG stepped in.

Too many things to disagree with here, so I'll limit myself to three.   
First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the  
concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic  
Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members who had been  
members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a shame that you  
couldn't have been open about your intentions at the time.

Second, you and those other MAG members not once responded to any of  
the specific questions, calls for comment and requests for help posted  
to the OCDC's mailing list (in fact, apart from you none ever posted  
to it at all); so I don't consider that qualifies as membership of a  
dynamic coalition.

Third, made no progress?  What progress has the Secretariat and MAG  
made by silently "stepping in" that the OCDC had not?  The OCDC's  
server at http://igf-online.net, despite being underutilised because  
of the Secretariat's refusal to promote it (and your filtering out of  
comments about it as the Secretariat's dutiful gatekeeper), remains  
the only community resource for the IGF (well, there's a Facebook  
group as well; linked from igf-online.net).

> sometimes the MAG screws up (Parminder's concern over how access was  
> described in the programme last year, which I insist was not  
> important and an accident, but he feels strongly otherwise, but we  
> disagree... was a screw up) and misses things, but nothing  
> deliberate or underhand to the best of my knowledge/recollection.

Well, I think you've just drawn attention to one counter-example at  
least.

>>> It is also easier for the Secretariat to palm off the  
>>> recommendations
>>> of the open consultations to the Secretary-General (a fiction, of
>>> course) so that it can disclaim responsibility for the dismissal of
>>> those recommendations.
>>
>> Yes, that obviously happens now. And the MAG as far as I know never
>> issues any recommendations.
>
> As Avri said.  Not a fiction. It's the way the UN works.   
> Governments asked the UN Secretary-General to convene it and convene  
> it he does.

For choosing MAG members, sure (although the preferable view is that  
the Secretary-General's powers lapsed once the IGF was established:  
see page 454 of my book).  But there are innumerable other decisions  
that significantly shaped the structure and processes of the IGF,  
particularly for its first meeting, that were down to Markus Kummer  
and Nitin Desai alone (as far as we know).

To choose one example at random, our ability to build a cohesive  
online community around the IGF that persists between meetings is  
impeded by the fact that membership of the IGF only exists in the form  
of a register of those attending its annual meetings in person, rather  
than for example in the manner of the old ICANN at large membership  
which was open to anyone from around the world.  This makes it  
impossible to communicate with the IGF community at large (to the  
extent that there even is one).

A short while ago Bertrand de la Chapelle sensibly called for the use  
of the plenary at intgovforum.org mailing list (that was created ages ago  
at my request, but never promoted or used by the Secretariat) for this  
purpose.  Even he was stolidly ignored.  So do tell me Adam, was this  
the Secretary-General's decision, or is it down to the Secretariat?

>>> Harder for it to ignore a clear resolution of
>>> the Advisory Group, whose numbers and constituencies are known and
>>> fixed.  (Still not impossible, though; case in point, the Chairman
>>> shutting down discussion within the Advisory Group of any  
>>> variation to
>>>  the 50% representation of governments.)
>
> Note Chair, not Secretariat. Not the same thing.

Nitin Desai has always regarded and referred to himself as a member of  
the Secretariat.  I can refer you to specific points of the  
transcripts if you need me to.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Tue May 27 22:45:33 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:15:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <040f01c8c06c$e815e890$b841b9b0$@net>

> Too many things to disagree with here, so I'll limit myself to three.
> First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the
> concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic
> Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members who had been
> members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a shame that you
> couldn't have been open about your intentions at the time.

The MAG is 

[a] Multistakeholder
[b] Nominated by different, in fact, sometimes conflicting, interests

So to believe that all of them colluded with the sole purpose of crushing
you .. well.

On the other hand, keeping Hanlon's Razor in mind, a dynamic coalition
that's incompetently run and doesn't seem to be going anywhere will find it
very hard to retain members ..

	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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue May 27 22:57:19 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:57:19 +0800
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <0B966E02-7ADF-48E6-A8C9-5F13FFE96971@Malcolm.id.au>

On 28/05/2008, at 12:13 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:

> I'm glad Adam raised this point.  There was a set of people, working  
> in collaboration with Kieren and Avri and others (sorry, i don't  
> remember the exact names), on tools for remote participation.  we  
> had identified tools, and had an implementation and testing plan,  
> and then because of conflicts in a larger group, the entire effort  
> was dropped.
>
> The group continued under jeremy's leadership.  Jeremy, what has  
> happened to that dynamic coalition?  Have you made any progress?   
> The goal is an important one.

I had written a reply before seeing Ginger's, which is a good summary  
so I'll start again and limit myself to a few additional points.

First, she is spot on in her remarks that efforts on this front are  
fragmented and that the Secretariat has declined to usefully  
participate in them.  I think this bears out my comments to Adam in my  
last mail.  I had previously sought to have Ginger's group and the  
OCDC merge, which seemed the only sensible course to me, but there was  
resistance to this suggestion so I dropped it.

There is actually little to report from the OCDC; I think it's fair to  
say that it has been reduced to a shell waiting for other people to  
step up and contribute.  To be frank, when Kieren and I led it, 90% of  
the work was done by two people, and since he left there's been only  
me.  I've been disinclined to be very active myself due to the  
personal attacks this draws (hello George).

Having said that, there are a few ongoing avenues of work that don't  
overlap with what Ginger's group is doing (others that did overlap,  
eg. discussions with the Indian hosts, have been dropped).  The most  
significant of these is that a tender has been delivered to ECOSOC for  
the development of a portal for online communities for the WSIS follow- 
up process that could also be used by the IGF.

The most important thing about this initiative is that it would be  
*funded*.  Given that the IGF Secretariat will not fund community- 
developed online resources for the IGF, and that volunteer resources  
are limited, this is a vital factor.  ECOSOC planned to have made a  
decision by May, but due to internal factors this has been pushed  
back, and I'm not sure when it will now happen.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue May 27 23:10:30 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:10:30 +0800
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <0B966E02-7ADF-48E6-A8C9-5F13FFE96971@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]> <0B966E02-7ADF-48E6-A8C9-5F13FFE96971@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <1AA7FE54-2CD6-4378-9560-C0BAF4A8E6BB@Malcolm.id.au>

On 28/05/2008, at 10:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> Having said that, there are a few ongoing avenues of work that don't  
> overlap with what Ginger's group is doing (others that did overlap,  
> eg. discussions with the Indian hosts, have been dropped).  The most  
> significant of these is that a tender has been delivered to ECOSOC  
> for the development of a portal for online communities for the WSIS  
> follow-up process that could also be used by the IGF.
>
> The most important thing about this initiative is that it would be  
> *funded*.  Given that the IGF Secretariat will not fund community- 
> developed online resources for the IGF, and that volunteer resources  
> are limited, this is a vital factor.  ECOSOC planned to have made a  
> decision by May, but due to internal factors this has been pushed  
> back, and I'm not sure when it will now happen.


I meant UNESCO, sorry.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed May 28 00:10:01 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:10:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <20080528013625.GB14402@hserus.net>
References: <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
	 <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net> <483CA981.30405@apc.org>
	 <20080528004408.GA14009@hserus.net> <483CAF7F.70600@apc.org>
	 <20080528013625.GB14402@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805272110q7cd9cdeue60c5501e9831bb1@mail.gmail.com>

Dear NomCom members, (and willie, milton, et. al.)

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Willie Currie [27/05/08 21:03 -0400]:
>>
>> I'm not saying you are acting on behalf of ICANN, Suresh, but when you
>>  call for better relations between the technical community and civil
>>  society, you undercut your rhetoric by swift boat type activity similar  to
>> Veni's when he was a member of this list. The point is neither you  nor Veni
>> do the technical community any favours through hostile attacks.

AFAIK, neither SR nor i represent the technical community.

What I am more interested in however is a very basic question, that
brings the focus back to the real topic at hand.

IF we let this draconian decision by the 2008 NomCom stand, without
taking any actions to prevent future fiddles, then logically we must
identify those who we are willing to exclude.  I'd like a list of
those orgs whose staff are "not us".  Any takers?

I'd also like to know why it's seemingly ok for us to nominate
part-time staff, Board members and/or consultants to these bodies.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed May 28 01:37:36 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:37:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805272110q7cd9cdeue60c5501e9831bb1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>	
 <20080527021020.GA19665@hserus.net>	
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7213@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	
 <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>	
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	
 <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net> <483CA981.30405@apc.org>	
 <20080528004408.GA14009@hserus.net> <483CAF7F.70600@apc.org>	
 <20080528013625.GB14402@hserus.net>
 <f65fb55e0805272110q7cd9cdeue60c5501e9831bb1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240805c4629eb57607@[192.168.1.2]>

>Dear NomCom members, (and willie, milton, et. al.)
>
>On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
><suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>  Willie Currie [27/05/08 21:03 -0400]:
>>>
>>>  I'm not saying you are acting on behalf of ICANN, Suresh, but when you
>>>   call for better relations between the technical community and civil
>>>   society, you undercut your rhetoric by swift boat type activity 
>>>similar  to
>>>  Veni's when he was a member of this list. The point is neither 
>>>you  nor Veni
>>>  do the technical community any favours through hostile attacks.
>
>AFAIK, neither SR nor i represent the technical community.
>
>What I am more interested in however is a very basic question, that
>brings the focus back to the real topic at hand.
>
>IF we let this draconian decision by the 2008 NomCom stand,


The nomcom's decision was in line with discussion on the list before 
the nomcom began it's work.  It reflects the majority of comments 
(and I say that as someone who was in the minority at the time...)

Move on.

Thanks,

Adam




>without
>taking any actions to prevent future fiddles, then logically we must
>identify those who we are willing to exclude.  I'd like a list of
>those orgs whose staff are "not us".  Any takers?
>
>I'd also like to know why it's seemingly ok for us to nominate
>part-time staff, Board members and/or consultants to these bodies.
>
>
>--
>Cheers,
>
>McTim
>$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed May 28 04:06:34 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:06:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <p06240805c4629eb57607@192.168.1.2>
References: <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
	 <022f01c8bfac$86123740$9236a5c0$@net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8AD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <20080528000416.GD12918@hserus.net> <483CA981.30405@apc.org>
	 <20080528004408.GA14009@hserus.net> <483CAF7F.70600@apc.org>
	 <20080528013625.GB14402@hserus.net>
	 <f65fb55e0805272110q7cd9cdeue60c5501e9831bb1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <p06240805c4629eb57607@192.168.1.2>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805280106l3ffff1ffob9c708727b4b2044@mail.gmail.com>

Hullo Adam,

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> Dear NomCom members, (and willie, milton, et. al.)
>>
>> IF we let this draconian decision by the 2008 NomCom stand,
>
>
> The nomcom's decision was in line with discussion on the list before the
> nomcom began it's work.

It was out of line actually, in that the discussion on the list didn't
give the nomcom carte blanche to ignore or abrogate the charter!

>It reflects the majority of comments (and I say
> that as someone who was in the minority at the time...)

"However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil
society participation" DOES NOT mean "go ahead and ignore the charter.

>
> Move on.


So, you get your questions answered, but I don't get mine answered?
Which non-profit orgs in Japan are now excluded from CS nominatiorn?
I really want to know, and if they are paying attention, I expect they
want to know 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  Wed May 28 06:19:25 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:19:25 +1000
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805280106l3ffff1ffob9c708727b4b2044@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <054001c8c0ac$516b6600$8b00a8c0@IAN>

McTim there is an appeals mechanism in place and you are of course welcome
to use it and I encourage you to do so if you feel the charter has been
abrogated. Go for it. 

The NomCom has completed its work and disbanded. Your questions are getting
sillier and sillier IMHO and like Adam I suggest you move on. The NGO
movement in Japan is not about to collapse due to an evil CS NomCom usurping
their rights.

This NomCom decided that, when its decision was likely to be controversial,
it would expose its internal reasoning so that the general caucus could
debate issues involved and thus improve CS processes and policies. I guess
in doing so it thought there would be a considered and rational debate, with
people realizing, as the NomCom did, that quite different and quite
legitimate positions existed on some issues. Particularly on conflicts of
interest that might exist for full time employees of central internet
governance organizations.

The NomCom could just as easily have simply exercised its judgement and
given no reasons whatsoever. It didn't. Instead, in addition to suggesting
the issues be debated and future policy determined by Caucus, NomCom members
have explained to you in quite a lot of detail some of the thoughts members
put forward. Nothing to do with volunteers, consultants, NGOs in general,
human rights, cctlds, hate campaigns, dragons, discrimination, Japanese NGOs
or Nazis. (the latter to evoke Godwin's rule because its time this thread
ended and we moved on)

All of this has been explained to you and if you don't get it, try to
re-read both the NomCom report and the various responses you have got. They
are specific, and exposing to the Caucus something the Caucus can either
accept or change in future. Or re-word. I'm happy whatever direction is
accepted in future, and confident that what was done in the past was done
with the best of intentions by a dedicated group of people giving of their
own time to assist a common cause. Disagree with them if you will, but
please don't question their integrity.

I'm not sure any future NomCOm will be so open and transparent in commenting
on the issues that arose for it. Like George, I tend to agree the whole
thing "exhibits enormous overkill and is an attempt to be incredibly pure
and correct (and time consuming) in the process"

And, BTW, I can assure you having been a member of ISOC's Nomcom as well
recently that conflict of interest issues arising from full time employment
by an internet governance body have been taken into account in the technical
community in the past in judging and rejecting candidates. Nothing new here.
Except that in a commitment to being open and transparent, this NomCom
reported to its members the basis of its decision making. And as well it
published details of who was nominated, something I personally disagree
with. 

This NomCom's work is complete, and short of a formal appeal being mounted
and my being summonsed I wont be debating its work with you or anyone. I
would however suggest that its recommendations be considered carefully,
particularly as regards an independent chair, something that did not happen
this year. If you want to improve the results, I think you will first have
to improve the process.



Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 May 2008 18:07
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Simple and basic questions
> 
> Hullo Adam,
> 
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> >> Dear NomCom members, (and willie, milton, et. al.)
> >>
> >> IF we let this draconian decision by the 2008 NomCom stand,
> >
> >
> > The nomcom's decision was in line with discussion on the list before the
> > nomcom began it's work.
> 
> It was out of line actually, in that the discussion on the list didn't
> give the nomcom carte blanche to ignore or abrogate the charter!
> 
> >It reflects the majority of comments (and I say
> > that as someone who was in the minority at the time...)
> 
> "However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil
> society participation" DOES NOT mean "go ahead and ignore the charter.
> 
> >
> > Move on.
> 
> 
> So, you get your questions answered, but I don't get mine answered?
> Which non-profit orgs in Japan are now excluded from CS nominatiorn?
> I really want to know, and if they are paying attention, I expect they
> want to know 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1469 - Release Date: 5/27/2008
> 1:25 PM

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed May 28 10:56:52 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:56:52 +0300
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <054001c8c0ac$516b6600$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <f65fb55e0805280106l3ffff1ffob9c708727b4b2044@mail.gmail.com>
	 <054001c8c0ac$516b6600$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805280756x5e5731d3wdaaf55d62493f49@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ian,

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> McTim there is an appeals mechanism in place and you are of course welcome
> to use it and I encourage you to do so if you feel the charter has been
> abrogated. Go for it.

The appeals mechanism does NOT apply to this situation, nor am I
trying to change the decision of the NomCom. I am just trying to
prepare guidance for the future.

2 days ago, you said "Now its up to the Caucus to determine whether it
wants to adopt a policy position here."

This is all I am trying to promote.



>
> The NomCom has completed its work and disbanded. Your questions are getting
> sillier and sillier IMHO and like Adam I suggest you move on. The NGO
> movement in Japan is not about to collapse due to an evil CS NomCom usurping
> their rights.
>

Did I suggest this? I just want the list.  After all, if we are to
exclude people who work for a class of non-profits, why is it silly to
ask for the names of those orgs?

> This NomCom decided that, when its decision was likely to be controversial,
> it would expose its internal reasoning so that the general caucus could
> debate issues involved

but only AFTER the fact, not before the decision was reached, as is
mentioned in the charter.


 and thus improve CS processes and policies. I guess
> in doing so it thought there would be a considered and rational debate, with
> people realizing, as the NomCom did, that quite different and quite
> legitimate positions existed on some issues. Particularly on conflicts of
> interest that might exist for full time employees of central internet
> governance organizations.

Yes, and the nomcom was split on this, in other words, no consensus,
which brings up the point I have raised in the last week re: why was a
decision made in the absence of consensus.


>
> The NomCom could just as easily have simply exercised its judgement and
> given no reasons whatsoever. It didn't. Instead, in addition to suggesting
> the issues be debated and future policy determined by Caucus, NomCom members
> have explained to you in quite a lot of detail some of the thoughts members
> put forward.

Only one by my count.

Nothing to do with volunteers, consultants, NGOs in general,
> human rights, cctlds, hate campaigns, dragons, discrimination, Japanese NGOs
> or Nazis. (the latter to evoke Godwin's rule because its time this thread
> ended and we moved on)
>

but 2 days ago, you said it was time for us to make a decision, has
smt changed in last two days?

> All of this has been explained to you and if you don't get it, try to
> re-read both the NomCom report and the various responses you have got. They
> are specific, and exposing to the Caucus something the Caucus can either
> accept or change in future. Or re-word. I'm happy whatever direction is
> accepted in future, and confident that what was done in the past was done
> with the best of intentions by a dedicated group of people giving of their
> own time to assist a common cause. Disagree with them if you will, but
> please don't question their integrity.
>
> I'm not sure any future NomCOm will be so open and transparent in commenting
> on the issues that arose for it. Like George, I tend to agree the whole
> thing "exhibits enormous overkill and is an attempt to be incredibly pure
> and correct (and time consuming) in the process"
>
> And, BTW, I can assure you having been a member of ISOC's Nomcom as well
> recently that conflict of interest issues arising from full time employment
> by an internet governance body have been taken into account in the technical
> community in the past in judging and rejecting candidates. Nothing new here.

If a nomcom wants to take this into account judging individual people,
that is their role, but to decide to exclude a class, that wasn't even
defined?? That is what I object so strongly too.


> Except that in a commitment to being open and transparent, this NomCom
> reported to its members the basis of its decision making.

After the fact (as above).

And as well it
> published details of who was nominated, something I personally disagree
> with.

per the charter (but I think I disagree as well).

>
> This NomCom's work is complete, and short of a formal appeal being mounted
> and my being summonsed I wont be debating its work with you or anyone.

not possible according to my reading of the charter.

 I
> would however suggest that its recommendations be considered carefully,
> particularly as regards an independent chair, something that did not happen
> this year. If you want to improve the results, I think you will first have
> to improve the process.

trying!!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Wed May 28 07:56:42 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:56:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <0B966E02-7ADF-48E6-A8C9-5F13FFE96971@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]>
 <0B966E02-7ADF-48E6-A8C9-5F13FFE96971@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <p0620076bc462f55ee407@[10.0.1.2]>

The OCDC need not have been reduced to a shell.  There were competent 
people working and starting to do things that could have been useful. 
Kieren's group was really starting to make progress  I don't know 
what happened to stop it.

AFAIK the MAG Secretariat does not have the power, or would want to, 
weaken of harm an operational dynamic community.  I think that 
blaming them for any lack of progress of the OCDC is wrong.   If a 
group of people really decide to do something useful together and 
stay with the task, there is little to stop them.

I don't think that the lack of money is an issue; it can't be blamed 
on someone else giving money to the effort.  There are enormous 
numbers of projects in the world done by volunteers, many in ICT and 
in the Internet community, either on their own time or under a 
liberal interpretation of the goals of their day jobs.  In fact, I 
think that the majority of this people on this list have paying day 
jobs in "the civil society sector" (if I can call it that) and might 
be willing to contribute to group efforts such as the OCDC.  Surely 
such expenditures of time would be consistent with the mandates of 
their organizations, if not necessarily perfectly aligned.

So why doesn't that happen?  Perhaps these people don't see the value 
of of such a dynamic coalition, or perhaps they're just preoccupied 
with other things (i.e. other things have a higher priority).  Or 
perhaps they just can't seem to get organized in a cooperative 
manner.  Talking is always easier than doing.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 10:57 AM +0800 5/28/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>On 28/05/2008, at 12:13 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:
>
>>I'm glad Adam raised this point.  There was a set of people, 
>>working in collaboration with Kieren and Avri and others (sorry, i 
>>don't remember the exact names), on tools for remote participation. 
>>we had identified tools, and had an implementation and testing 
>>plan, and then because of conflicts in a larger group, the entire 
>>effort was dropped.
>>
>>The group continued under jeremy's leadership.  Jeremy, what has 
>>happened to that dynamic coalition?  Have you made any progress?  
>>The goal is an important one.
>
>I had written a reply before seeing Ginger's, which is a good 
>summary so I'll start again and limit myself to a few additional 
>points.
>
>First, she is spot on in her remarks that efforts on this front are 
>fragmented and that the Secretariat has declined to usefully 
>participate in them.  I think this bears out my comments to Adam in 
>my last mail.  I had previously sought to have Ginger's group and 
>the OCDC merge, which seemed the only sensible course to me, but 
>there was resistance to this suggestion so I dropped it.
>
>There is actually little to report from the OCDC; I think it's fair 
>to say that it has been reduced to a shell waiting for other people 
>to step up and contribute.  To be frank, when Kieren and I led it, 
>90% of the work was done by two people, and since he left there's 
>been only me.  I've been disinclined to be very active myself due to 
>the personal attacks this draws (hello George).
>
>Having said that, there are a few ongoing avenues of work that don't 
>overlap with what Ginger's group is doing (others that did overlap, 
>eg. discussions with the Indian hosts, have been dropped).  The most 
>significant of these is that a tender has been delivered to ECOSOC 
>for the development of a portal for online communities for the WSIS 
>follow-up process that could also be used by the IGF.
>
>The most important thing about this initiative is that it would be 
>*funded*.  Given that the IGF Secretariat will not fund 
>community-developed online resources for the IGF, and that volunteer 
>resources are limited, this is a vital factor.  ECOSOC planned to 
>have made a decision by May, but due to internal factors this has 
>been pushed back, and I'm not sure when it will now happen.
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed May 28 13:33:32 2008
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:33:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] Do we need a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <p0620076bc462f55ee407@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <p0620075ec461e28f60c2@[10.0.1.2]>
 <0B966E02-7ADF-48E6-A8C9-5F13FFE96971@Malcolm.id.au>
 <p0620076bc462f55ee407@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <QfWFySfsdZPIFAhT@perry.co.uk>

In message <p0620076bc462f55ee407@[10.0.1.2]>, at 07:56:42 on Wed, 28 
May 2008, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> writes
>The OCDC need not have been reduced to a shell.  There were competent 
>people working and starting to do things that could have been useful. 
>Kieren's group was really starting to make progress  I don't know what 
>happened to stop it.

I heard, don't know if it's true, that it's regarded as insulting to the 
host country to over-rule their plans (however inadequate they might be) 
for remote participation, which is seen as part of the facilities they 
are supposed to be offering.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Wed May 28 13:58:35 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:58:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] Simple and basic questions
In-Reply-To: <054001c8c0ac$516b6600$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <054001c8c0ac$516b6600$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <71F80453-4DFC-4242-BCCF-CE884BE4168C@psg.com>


On 28 May 2008, at 06:19, Ian Peter wrote:

>  I
> would however suggest that its recommendations be considered  
> carefully,
> particularly as regards an independent chair, something that did not  
> happen
> this year. If you want to improve the results, I think you will  
> first have
> to improve the process.


the process already requires a non-voting chair.  personaly i think  
that was the first mistake that was made this time.  and the major  
mistake.  and since i was consulted on whether i thought this would be  
ok and stupidly said 'why not' i blame myself for giving really bad  
advice.  we have now seen 'why not'.

it is the non-voting chair's responsibility to make sure that all of  
the rules are followed, and it would have been the non-voting chars  
responsibility to say " holdup, we need to verify these criteria with  
the caucus (rule 5)"

so one thing i hope we learn is that when the coordinators start  
asking around for someone to volunteer to be that non-voting chair,  
someone stands up and volunteers.

one good thing we have, is 5 more people who have been on the nomcom  
and thus have 5 more victims for non-voting chair.  and hopefully more  
people who understand why we need someone in that role.

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  Wed May 28 14:37:45 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:37:45 -0400
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic
 questions
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>


On 26 May 2008, at 16:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> IGF is ... , even though this caucus is organized primarily around  
> it, ...

in the midst of many angst ridden messages this statement went by.


i have been questioning this statement since then.

while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci for this  
caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary one.  and  
whether it should be.   (as should be obvious, i personally think the  
IGF is a wonderful entity to focus on.  if only i had more hours in  
the day.)

certainly a lot gets said about ICANN, and since much of the concern  
with IGF seems ICANN related, one could argue that ICANN figures into  
the category of things the IGC is concerned with and could organize  
itself around.  remember mid 2009 is not all that far away.

we have also gotten periodic appeals from the RIRs, to get invovled -  
they seem to want CS people to get involved and they come to us asking  
for some involvement.  perhaps we could include them among the  
concerns we organize ourselves around.

and periodically countries have done IGish things that the IGC could  
have (should have) been up in arms about.  perhaps these do could be  
included in the IGC circle of care.

in some respects, this suggestion seems nuts, we don't seem to have  
enough active members to even cover the IGC adequately.  and i  
certainly have no wish to jeopardize the IGC's efforts vis a vis the  
IGf.   but perhaps, having a broader stage for IGC participation and  
yes, even advocacy, might inspire a few more of the silent watchers to  
have something they care to get involved in.  it could happen?

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 wsis at ngocongo.org  Wed May 28 15:48:14 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:48:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] TR: CSTD draft resolution
Message-ID: <200805281947.m4SJl5AI013855@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

For your information, this is the up dated version of the text of the CSTD
daft resolution after the round of informal consultations taking place this
afternoon.

Best, 

 

Ph

  _____  

De : UNCTAD - United Nations Commission on Science & Technology De la part
de Janis Karklins
Envoyé : mercredi, 28. mai 2008 20:05
Objet : CSTD draft resolution

 

Colleagues,

As promissed the version which was on the screen

Have a good reading

JK & MAA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080528/12f2a63c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSTD 2008 Draft resolution v 20 05 with contributions 28-5-2008 9 pm.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 86528 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080528/12f2a63c/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 28 16:50:02 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:50:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
> 
> while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci 
> for this caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary one.

There is no doubt that IGF is the primary focus. This caucus generates
statements for submission to IGF, and nominates people to the IGF AG,
and serves as a focal point for the organization of workshops at IGF
annual meetings. 

ICANN is an often-discussed topic, yes. But this caucus has never
generated a statement to an ICANN meeting or process, never nominated
anyone for the numerous ICANN positions and never organized a workshop
for an ICANN meeting. As ICANN meetings approach, we do not see list
members telling each other who plans to be there. I would like to see
more people here get involved in ICANN processes directly; as chair of
the NCUC and an active participant in GNSO task forces and policy
development processes, I have often urged people here to get more
involved. 

RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
Randy Bush. There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial about
the newcomers' comment, Bush was just being territorial and attempting
to make this person feel like an outsider. So be forwarned: while there
are numerous and quite sincere entreaties from the RIRs to get more
involved, there is still a very strong tribal element in those circles
that will not be happy when you do. But I expect that to change
gradually.) 

The EU is another area to keep an eye on. There are enough Europeans
here, and enough global impact of EU decisions, for that to be a proper
area of focus. And of course, we all must, for better or worse, pay
attention to aspects of US policy. As a principal of IGP I often wish
people in this group would respond more actively to efforts to respond
strategically to US actions that have global consequences (ICANN JPA
being an obvious case in point). 
 
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  Wed May 28 21:09:18 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:09:18 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net>

Milton L Mueller [28/05/08 16:50 -0400]:
>RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
>were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
>recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
>Randy Bush. There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial about

There's one difference, Milton. Randy's done a lot for the Internet (and
the Internet in developing countries too). In fact if volume of work done
were to be calculated, he's done far more for the internet, than you've
played icann politics (not to mention that his work's actually produced
some valuable output rather than mere hot air and poison..).

He is also far less reluctant to call a spade a spade than most. Which
doesnt really equate to tribalism.

	srs
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Wed May 28 21:25:48 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:25:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]>

All,

Suresh is absolutely correct in pointing out through this example a 
large cultural difference between the more hard core technical 
community and the cultures of some other groups.  i know nothing 
about the particular incident in question, but I do know something 
about the IETF, and I'll use that as an illustration.  I believe that 
the circumstances may be quite similar.

IETF operates as a meritocracy.  It has no legal existence, and 
anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting.  it doesn't 
matter where you are from, who you work for, what color, gender you 
are, or any other attribute of your personal life and/or beliefs that 
have no bearing on how well you think, contribute or perform.  Once 
you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost completely by 
the ideas that you contribute to the discussion.  If you don't know 
what you're talking about, you'll be shut up.  If you contribute 
well, you will be appreciated.  They don't believe in or have a large 
tolerance for sloppy or uncritical thinking.

In therms of treatment of individuals, this is one of the fairest, 
most egalitarian groups I know.  It believes in working toward 
results and agreeing on the basis of rough consensus and running 
code.  To be fair, the operational test of running code is a metric 
more easily available in science and engineering disciplines than it 
is in many other dimensions of human affairs but it is an ideal that 
other groups might wish to take into account.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 6:09 PM -0700 5/28/08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Milton L Mueller [28/05/08 16:50 -0400]:
>>RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
>>were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
>>recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
>>Randy Bush. There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial about
>
>There's one difference, Milton. Randy's done a lot for the Internet (and
>the Internet in developing countries too). In fact if volume of work done
>were to be calculated, he's done far more for the internet, than you've
>played icann politics (not to mention that his work's actually produced
>some valuable output rather than mere hot air and poison..).
>
>He is also far less reluctant to call a spade a spade than most. Which
>doesnt really equate to tribalism.
>
>	srs
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed May 28 23:58:02 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 06:58:02 +0300
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
	 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
	 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
	 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
	 <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
	 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>
	 <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805282058q1e6f2722u57bdf46a25e184da@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>>
>> while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci
>> for this caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary one.
>
> There is no doubt that IGF is the primary focus.


yes, but SHOULD it be?  What if it is disbanded? Do we then turn to
the "existing IG processes"?  I would hope we could build
alliances/bridges between ourselves and existing processes now,
instead of 100% focus on IGF.



This caucus generates
> statements for submission to IGF, and nominates people to the IGF AG,
> and serves as a focal point for the organization of workshops at IGF
> annual meetings.
>
> ICANN is an often-discussed topic, yes. But this caucus has never
> generated a statement to an ICANN meeting or process, never nominated
> anyone for the numerous ICANN positions and never organized a workshop
> for an ICANN meeting. As ICANN meetings approach, we do not see list
> members telling each other who plans to be there. I would like to see
> more people here get involved in ICANN processes directly; as chair of
> the NCUC and an active participant in GNSO task forces and policy
> development processes, I have often urged people here to get more
> involved.
>
> RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
> were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
> recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
> Randy Bush.

Now now, while it wasn't the nicest welcome, it certainly
wasn't an "attack"..  If I said to you on this list;

"this is the actual internet.  we deal with actual operational reality,
not just ersatz egalitarian academic bs."

I think your feathers would be barely ruffled.


There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial about
> the newcomers' comment, Bush was just being territorial and attempting
> to make this person feel like an outsider.

Not to defend the old curmudgeon, but it's more of a case of not
suffering fools gladly.

So be forwarned: while there
> are numerous and quite sincere entreaties from the RIRs to get more
> involved, there is still a very strong tribal element in those circles
> that will not be happy when you do. But I expect that to change
> gradually.)
>

See George's mail.


-- 
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  Wed May 28 23:59:53 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:59:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018840E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]

>i know nothing 
>about the particular incident in question, 

A wiser man would refrain from comment, then.

>IETF operates as a meritocracy.

We aren't talking about IETF, George. We are talking about a public policy list for ARIN (ARIN PPML). That list is not confined to software programmers, network engineers or technical standards developers, it is intended to be open to anyone and to address public policy issues. ARIN staff spend a lot of time encouraging people to join it and participate. 

>anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting.  
>it doesn't matter where you are from, who you work 
>for, what color, gender you are, or any other attribute 
>of your personal life and/or beliefs that have no bearing 
>on how well you think, contribute or perform.  Once 
>you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost 
>completely by the ideas that you contribute to the 
>discussion.  If you don't know what you're talking 
>about, you'll be shut up.

Two responses. First, the incident in question, which you admit you know nothing about, proves that this is not always true. Certain individuals like Bush, known for their emotional volatility even among IETF-ers, may attempt to shut you up even if you do know what you're talking about. Indeed, that kind of reaction sometimes occurs precisely because you know more than them, or bring up an issue they have not thought of. For a few individuals, that is a situation they are not used to and don't adapt to well.  

Public policy is a topic that can be approached more or less scientifically, via the lens of law, history, economics and political science. That is where my expertise lies, and Randy Bush is in no position to assess it, much less dismiss it. But it is also true that everyone has an opinion about politics and it stirs passions. Network engineers are no more immune to prejudice and emotion in that area than any other group. They may or may not understand the legal, social, political or economic implications of what they are doing any better than an ordinary person. So from about 1996 on there has been a very severe cultural adaptation process for the Internet technical developer community, as they have been forced to come to terms with politics and with new kinds of stakeholders and different communities of knowledge, ranging from trademark lawyers to entrepreneurs to free expression advocacy groups to democracy advocates in internet governance. Some of them have managed to do this relatively gracefully (e.g., David Clark) others have not. 

Second, among this technical group it is just not true that the treatment you receive will be based entirely or even primarily on the ideas you contribute, unless perhaps those ideas are about computer science, which no one here or on the Arin PPML is discussing. IETF and the institutions that have emerged out of it have at their core a group of predominantly American and European white males, all computer scientists, who have known each other and worked together intensively for 30 years. They form a tightly-knit social network. They have their own culture. The treatment you will receive from this group depends on who you know in that group and what they say about you. Full stop. Once you get on the bad side of one or two of these people, it doesn't matter what you say or how much you know about relevant issues, you will not be listened to. You are marked as an outsider and an enemy and that's that. 

>In therms of treatment of individuals, this is one of 
>the fairest, most egalitarian groups I know.

That's because you're one of them, George. You are in no position to comment on how people who are unknown to them, have different forms of knowledge and speak a different conceptual language will be treated. 

>It believes 
>in working toward results and agreeing on the basis of 
>rough consensus and running code.  To be fair, the operational 
>test of running code is a metric more easily available in 
>science and engineering disciplines than it is in many other 
>dimensions of human affairs but it is an ideal that 
>other groups might wish to take into account.

This is the catechism, we've heard it before. As a profession of your Faith I respect it. And I certainly respect the legacy technical and operational accomplishments of that group. As you yourself sense, however, those metrics do not apply easily to political, economic and public policy contexts. And in your rush to defend the innate fairness of your group, you may have obscured the more important point Avri and I were trying to make, which is that there is a world of IG-related institutions and activities outside of the IGF, and the success of the IGF rests on integrating it with them. 

So let's all sit back and wait for Suresh's inevitable personal attack, let it pass, and then continue the dialogue on that topic.

--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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080528/df5f7075/attachment.bin>

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu May 29 00:00:35 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net><7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net><AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com><483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net><019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net><483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net><01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net><7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com><7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805282058q1e6f2722u57bdf46a25e184da@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018840E9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>




-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]

>I would hope we could build alliances/bridges 
>between ourselves and existing processes now,
>instead of 100% focus on IGF.

This is 100% in agreement with what I said in my message. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080529/687d9b6d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 29 00:03:46 2008
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] The Guardian: Icann makes a very British compromise
 over net policing
Message-ID: <337333.58982.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi all,

The article below appeared in The Guardian today.

Cheers
David

Icann makes a very British compromise over net policing
The IGF was set up to help the bodies that govern the internet become more democratically minded and more globally focused

The internet is currently unpoliced. The nearest it has to a governing body is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of stakeholders - carriers, ISPs, academics, civil society, governments and international organisations - which is more like a parliament than an executive.

The IGF meets once a year and deals with topics such as: openness (the free flow of ideas and information); security (protecting users and networks); e-criminals (child abusers etc); cultural and linguistic diversity; and issues of access, particularly in the developing world. It takes no votes and makes no decisions but advises bodies that run the internet day-to-day, such as Icann.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/29/internet.politics

 ---------


David Goldstein
address: 4/3 Abbott Street
COOGEE NSW 2034
AUSTRALIA
email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au
phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home)


"Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery



      Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu May 29 03:49:17 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:49:17 +1000
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <072901c8c160$8380d9e0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Let me take a different tack on this -

My only reason for being on this list is because I believe it is important
that the role of governments in particular in Internet governance be
appropriately established - hence a UN initiative is very appropriate to
move us away from unilateral government control systems. And as we move away
from the pioneer governance systems to something more appropriate
multistakeholder becomes an important concept.

I am not the slightest bit interested in ICANN. If I want to involve myself
with RIRs I can do so already. To me, despite a few problems, they have good
structures in place for what they do. I'd rather concentrate on the gaps and
where we need something new, and appropriate roles for governments acting in
concert, rather than turn this list into a catch-all for discussion and
gripes on well structured existing institutions.

ICANN and RIRs and IETF are the little picture. Let's look at the bigger
picture of what is happening in this area and what needs to emerge. And
where the gaps are in Internet governance.





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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: 29 May 2008 06:50
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> >
> > while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci
> > for this caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary one.
> 
> There is no doubt that IGF is the primary focus. This caucus generates
> statements for submission to IGF, and nominates people to the IGF AG,
> and serves as a focal point for the organization of workshops at IGF
> annual meetings.
> 
> ICANN is an often-discussed topic, yes. But this caucus has never
> generated a statement to an ICANN meeting or process, never nominated
> anyone for the numerous ICANN positions and never organized a workshop
> for an ICANN meeting. As ICANN meetings approach, we do not see list
> members telling each other who plans to be there. I would like to see
> more people here get involved in ICANN processes directly; as chair of
> the NCUC and an active participant in GNSO task forces and policy
> development processes, I have often urged people here to get more
> involved.
> 
> RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
> were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
> recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
> Randy Bush. There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial about
> the newcomers' comment, Bush was just being territorial and attempting
> to make this person feel like an outsider. So be forwarned: while there
> are numerous and quite sincere entreaties from the RIRs to get more
> involved, there is still a very strong tribal element in those circles
> that will not be happy when you do. But I expect that to change
> gradually.)
> 
> The EU is another area to keep an eye on. There are enough Europeans
> here, and enough global impact of EU decisions, for that to be a proper
> area of focus. And of course, we all must, for better or worse, pay
> attention to aspects of US policy. As a principal of IGP I often wish
> people in this group would respond more actively to efforts to respond
> strategically to US actions that have global consequences (ICANN JPA
> being an obvious case in point).
> 
> 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1470 - Release Date: 5/28/2008
> 7:20 AM

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 29 04:20:14 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:20:14 +0900
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <072901c8c160$8380d9e0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <072901c8c160$8380d9e0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <p0624080bc4641684a2e3@[192.168.1.2]>

>Let me take a different tack on this -
>
>My only reason for being on this list is because I believe it is important
>that the role of governments in particular in Internet governance be
>appropriately established - hence a UN initiative is very appropriate to
>move us away from


Ian, thanks, interesting comment.  When you say:


>unilateral government control systems.


are you focusing on the root?

Thanks,

Adam


>And as we move away
>from the pioneer governance systems to something more appropriate
>multistakeholder becomes an important concept.
>
>I am not the slightest bit interested in ICANN. If I want to involve myself
>with RIRs I can do so already. To me, despite a few problems, they have good
>structures in place for what they do. I'd rather concentrate on the gaps and
>where we need something new, and appropriate roles for governments acting in
>concert, rather than turn this list into a catch-all for discussion and
>gripes on well structured existing institutions.
>
>ICANN and RIRs and IETF are the little picture. Let's look at the bigger
>picture of what is happening in this area and what needs to emerge. And
>where the gaps are in Internet governance.
>
>
>
>
>
>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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>>  Sent: 29 May 2008 06:50
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
>>  Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
>>
>>
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>>  >
>>  > while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci
>>  > for this caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary one.
>>
>>  There is no doubt that IGF is the primary focus. This caucus generates
>>  statements for submission to IGF, and nominates people to the IGF AG,
>>  and serves as a focal point for the organization of workshops at IGF
>>  annual meetings.
>>
>>  ICANN is an often-discussed topic, yes. But this caucus has never
>>  generated a statement to an ICANN meeting or process, never nominated
>>  anyone for the numerous ICANN positions and never organized a workshop
>>  for an ICANN meeting. As ICANN meetings approach, we do not see list
>>  members telling each other who plans to be there. I would like to see
>>  more people here get involved in ICANN processes directly; as chair of
>>  the NCUC and an active participant in GNSO task forces and policy
>>  development processes, I have often urged people here to get more
>>  involved.
>>
>>  RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
>>  were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
>>  recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
>>  Randy Bush. There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial about
>>  the newcomers' comment, Bush was just being territorial and attempting
>>  to make this person feel like an outsider. So be forwarned: while there
>>  are numerous and quite sincere entreaties from the RIRs to get more
>>  involved, there is still a very strong tribal element in those circles
>>  that will not be happy when you do. But I expect that to change
>>  gradually.)
>>
>>  The EU is another area to keep an eye on. There are enough Europeans
>>  here, and enough global impact of EU decisions, for that to be a proper
>>  area of focus. And of course, we all must, for better or worse, pay
>>  attention to aspects of US policy. As a principal of IGP I often wish
>>  people in this group would respond more actively to efforts to respond
>>  strategically to US actions that have global consequences (ICANN JPA
>>  being an obvious case in point).
>>
>>  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
>>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>>  Checked by AVG.
>>  Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1470 - Release Date: 5/28/2008
>>  7:20 AM
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu May 29 04:26:06 2008
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:26:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <p0624080bc4641684a2e3@[192.168.1.2]>
References: <072901c8c160$8380d9e0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
 <p0624080bc4641684a2e3@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <TJql3h4eimPIFAxb@perry.co.uk>

In message <p0624080bc4641684a2e3@[192.168.1.2]>, at 17:20:14 on Thu, 29 
May 2008, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> writes
>>unilateral government control systems.
>
>are you focusing on the root?

Or censorship and mass surveillance, both of which tend to be done by 
Governments on as much of the "local" Internet as they can gain 
jurisdiction over. Not to forget competition law (last mile, most 
often), net neutrality and so on.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu May 29 04:49:25 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 18:49:25 +1000
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <p0624080bc4641684a2e3@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <074901c8c168$e893a990$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Yes, the root is a key concern here. But also some of the control systems
over key resources such as will be exposed in proposed workshop on
transboundary data. So I guess there I am interested in ICANN and its
internationalization - I just don't want this forum to become another NCUC
or At Large or something that gives us more of the same when there are other
forums for that. 

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: 29 May 2008 18:20
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: RE: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
> 
> >Let me take a different tack on this -
> >
> >My only reason for being on this list is because I believe it is
> important
> >that the role of governments in particular in Internet governance be
> >appropriately established - hence a UN initiative is very appropriate to
> >move us away from
> 
> 
> Ian, thanks, interesting comment.  When you say:
> 
> 
> >unilateral government control systems.
> 
> 
> are you focusing on the root?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> >And as we move away
> >from the pioneer governance systems to something more appropriate
> >multistakeholder becomes an important concept.
> >
> >I am not the slightest bit interested in ICANN. If I want to involve
> myself
> >with RIRs I can do so already. To me, despite a few problems, they have
> good
> >structures in place for what they do. I'd rather concentrate on the gaps
> and
> >where we need something new, and appropriate roles for governments acting
> in
> >concert, rather than turn this list into a catch-all for discussion and
> >gripes on well structured existing institutions.
> >
> >ICANN and RIRs and IETF are the little picture. Let's look at the bigger
> >picture of what is happening in this area and what needs to emerge. And
> >where the gaps are in Internet governance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> >>  Sent: 29 May 2008 06:50
> >>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> >>  Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
> >>
> >>
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> >>  >
> >>  > while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci
> >>  > for this caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary
> one.
> >>
> >>  There is no doubt that IGF is the primary focus. This caucus generates
> >>  statements for submission to IGF, and nominates people to the IGF AG,
> >>  and serves as a focal point for the organization of workshops at IGF
> >>  annual meetings.
> >>
> >>  ICANN is an often-discussed topic, yes. But this caucus has never
> >>  generated a statement to an ICANN meeting or process, never nominated
> >>  anyone for the numerous ICANN positions and never organized a workshop
> >>  for an ICANN meeting. As ICANN meetings approach, we do not see list
> >>  members telling each other who plans to be there. I would like to see
> >>  more people here get involved in ICANN processes directly; as chair of
> >>  the NCUC and an active participant in GNSO task forces and policy
> >>  development processes, I have often urged people here to get more
> >>  involved.
> >>
> >>  RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
> >>  were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
> >>  recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
> >>  Randy Bush. There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial
> about
> >>  the newcomers' comment, Bush was just being territorial and attempting
> >>  to make this person feel like an outsider. So be forwarned: while
> there
> >>  are numerous and quite sincere entreaties from the RIRs to get more
> >>  involved, there is still a very strong tribal element in those circles
> >>  that will not be happy when you do. But I expect that to change
> >>  gradually.)
> >>
> >>  The EU is another area to keep an eye on. There are enough Europeans
> >>  here, and enough global impact of EU decisions, for that to be a
> proper
> >>  area of focus. And of course, we all must, for better or worse, pay
> >>  attention to aspects of US policy. As a principal of IGP I often wish
> >>  people in this group would respond more actively to efforts to respond
> >>  strategically to US actions that have global consequences (ICANN JPA
> >>  being an obvious case in point).
> >>
> >>  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
> >>  No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>  Checked by AVG.
> >>  Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1470 - Release Date:
> 5/28/2008
> >>  7:20 AM
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 5/28/2008
> 5:33 PM

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From vb at bertola.eu  Thu May 29 05:57:54 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:57:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] The Guardian: Icann makes a very British compromise
In-Reply-To: <337333.58982.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <337333.58982.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <483E7E22.3030703@bertola.eu>

David Goldstein ha scritto:
> Hi all,
> 
> The article below appeared in The Guardian today.

Interesting recollection. Especially the point about the concept of 
"dynamic coalitions" having been invented by a former UK Minister :-D
-- 
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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 29 06:37:31 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 19:37:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <074901c8c168$e893a990$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <074901c8c168$e893a990$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <p06240813c46422b47e4d@[192.168.1.2]>

Thanks,

>Yes, the root is a key concern here. But also some of the control systems
>over key resources such as will be exposed in proposed workshop on
>transboundary data. So I guess there I am interested in ICANN and its
>internationalization


that was my confusion!

I think it's important someone at the CSTD meeting try to find out 
what enhanced cooperation means (for example in 19bis in the current 
draft resolution Philippe sent around.) Governments that want this 
discussed should say what it is they mean, be required to be specific.


>  - I just don't want this forum to become another NCUC
>or At Large or something that gives us more of the same when there are other
>forums for that.


Understood,

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
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>  Sent: 29 May 2008 18:20
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
>>  Subject: RE: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
>>
>>  >Let me take a different tack on this -
>>  >
>>  >My only reason for being on this list is because I believe it is
>>  important
>>  >that the role of governments in particular in Internet governance be
>>  >appropriately established - hence a UN initiative is very appropriate to
>>  >move us away from
>>
>>
>>  Ian, thanks, interesting comment.  When you say:
>>
>>
>>  >unilateral government control systems.
>>
>>
>>  are you focusing on the root?
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>
>>  >And as we move away
>>  >from the pioneer governance systems to something more appropriate
>>  >multistakeholder becomes an important concept.
>>  >
>>  >I am not the slightest bit interested in ICANN. If I want to involve
>>  myself
>>  >with RIRs I can do so already. To me, despite a few problems, they have
>>  good
>>  >structures in place for what they do. I'd rather concentrate on the gaps
>>  and
>>  >where we need something new, and appropriate roles for governments acting
>>  in
>>  >concert, rather than turn this list into a catch-all for discussion and
>>  >gripes on well structured existing institutions.
>>  >
>>  >ICANN and RIRs and IETF are the little picture. Let's look at the bigger
>>  >picture of what is happening in this area and what needs to emerge. And
>>  >where the gaps are in Internet governance.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>>  >>  Sent: 29 May 2008 06:50
>>  >>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
>>  >>  Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  >>  > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci
>>  >>  > for this caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary
>>  one.
>>  >>
>>  >>  There is no doubt that IGF is the primary focus. This caucus generates
>>  >>  statements for submission to IGF, and nominates people to the IGF AG,
>>  >>  and serves as a focal point for the organization of workshops at IGF
>>  >>  annual meetings.
>>  >>
>>  >>  ICANN is an often-discussed topic, yes. But this caucus has never
>>  >>  generated a statement to an ICANN meeting or process, never nominated
>>  >>  anyone for the numerous ICANN positions and never organized a workshop
>>  >>  for an ICANN meeting. As ICANN meetings approach, we do not see list
>>  >>  members telling each other who plans to be there. I would like to see
>>  >>  more people here get involved in ICANN processes directly; as chair of
>>  >>  the NCUC and an active participant in GNSO task forces and policy
>>  >>  development processes, I have often urged people here to get more
>  > >>  involved.
>>  >>
>>  >>  RIRs are barely on the agenda here, though of course I wish more of us
>>  >>  were involved in that too. (By the way, a newcomer from this list
>>  >>  recently made a comment on the ARIN list and was instantly attacked by
>>  >>  Randy Bush. There was nothing particularly wrong or controversial
>>  about
>>  >>  the newcomers' comment, Bush was just being territorial and attempting
>>  >>  to make this person feel like an outsider. So be forwarned: while
>>  there
>>  >>  are numerous and quite sincere entreaties from the RIRs to get more
>>  >>  involved, there is still a very strong tribal element in those circles
>>  >>  that will not be happy when you do. But I expect that to change
>>  >>  gradually.)
>>  >>
>>  >>  The EU is another area to keep an eye on. There are enough Europeans
>>  >>  here, and enough global impact of EU decisions, for that to be a
>>  proper
>>  >>  area of focus. And of course, we all must, for better or worse, pay
>>  >>  attention to aspects of US policy. As a principal of IGP I often wish
>>  >>  people in this group would respond more actively to efforts to respond
>>  >>  strategically to US actions that have global consequences (ICANN JPA
>>  >>  being an obvious case in point).
>>  >>
>>  >>  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
>>  >>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>>  >>  Checked by AVG.
>>  >>  Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1470 - Release Date:
>>  5/28/2008
>>  >>  7:20 AM
>>  >
>>  >____________________________________________________________
>>  >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >
>>  >For all list information and functions, see:
>>  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>>  Checked by AVG.
>>  Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 5/28/2008
>>  5:33 PM
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 29 06:37:51 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 19:37:51 +0900
Subject: [governance] The Guardian: Icann makes a very British
In-Reply-To: <483E7E22.3030703@bertola.eu>
References: <337333.58982.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <483E7E22.3030703@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <p06240817c46436471494@[192.168.1.2]>

>David Goldstein ha scritto:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>The article below appeared in The Guardian today.
>
>Interesting recollection. Especially the point about the concept of 
>"dynamic coalitions" having been invented by a former UK Minister :-D


I know someone who will be quite pleased to have had the "blame" for 
that name taken from her shoulders...

Adam


>--
>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 pwilson at apnic.net  Thu May 29 09:27:24 2008
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:24 +1000
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?OECD/YouTube_=E2=80=9CFuture_of_the_Inter?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?net=E2=80=9D_initiative?=
Message-ID: <BF6460870D01D4A819BFB97D@145.99.w.lacnicxi.nic.br>

FYI

<http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3343,en_2649_34223_40713859_1_1_1_1,00.html>

> OECD and YouTube launch “Future of the Internet” initiative
>
> 29/05/2008 - How can the Internet make the world a better place?” This
> is the question OECD is asking the public on YouTube, the leading online
> video community, at www.youtube.com/futureinternet.
>
> YouTube users can share their opinion with the leaders and opinion
> shapers attending the OECD Ministerial meeting on the “Future of the
> Internet” in Seoul, Korea on 17-18 June 2008.
>
> “You tell the leaders and opinion shapers in Seoul what you think and
> they will upload responses to your ideas. Join in. Take part in making a
> difference,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría.


________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Thu May 29 10:51:54 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:51:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To:  <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018840E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018840E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06200786c46445f0b7ee@[10.0.1.2]>

Comments below,

At 11:59 PM -0400 5/28/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>
>>i know nothing
>>about the particular incident in question,
>
>A wiser man would refrain from comment, then.

So even if I don't know specific details but feel that I have 
something to add from a situation that I think is analogous, it would 
be wise to say nothing, right?

>  >IETF operates as a meritocracy.
>
>We aren't talking about IETF, George. We are talking about a public 
>policy list for ARIN (ARIN PPML). That list is not confined to 
>software programmers, network engineers or technical standards 
>developers, it is intended to be open to anyone and to address 
>public policy issues. ARIN staff spend a lot of time encouraging 
>people to join it and participate.

In retrospect, I should have made it clear that I was using an analogy.

Milton, my point, which I think you understood, was that generally if 
you know what you are talking about and talk sensibly within the 
context of IETF, or the RIRs, or other such similar bodies, then your 
opinions are treated with some respect.  It's certainly true that 
there are people who are mercurial and who take offense without 
offense being given, and Randy is known to have a shorter temper than 
others.  That's an unfortunate fact of life on this planet.  Perhaps 
there are some people like that on this list also.

>  >anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting. 
>>it doesn't matter where you are from, who you work
>>for, what color, gender you are, or any other attribute
>>of your personal life and/or beliefs that have no bearing
>>on how well you think, contribute or perform.  Once
>>you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost
>>completely by the ideas that you contribute to the
>>discussion.  If you don't know what you're talking
>>about, you'll be shut up.
>
>Two responses. First, the incident in question, which you admit you 
>know nothing about, proves that this is not always true.

Correct, but generalizing from one data point is not good practice.

>  Certain individuals like Bush, known for their emotional volatility 
>even among IETF-ers, may attempt to shut you up even if you do know 
>what you're talking about. Indeed, that kind of reaction sometimes 
>occurs precisely because you know more than them, or bring up an 
>issue they have not thought of. For a few individuals, that is a 
>situation they are not used to and don't adapt to well. 
>
>Public policy is a topic that can be approached more or less 
>scientifically, via the lens of law, history, economics and 
>political science. That is where my expertise lies, and Randy Bush 
>is in no position to assess it, much less dismiss it. But it is also 
>true that everyone has an opinion about politics and it stirs 
>passions. Network engineers are no more immune to prejudice and 
>emotion in that area than any other group.

... and no less immune than others also?

>  They may or may not understand the legal, social, political or 
>economic implications of what they are doing any better than an 
>ordinary person.

The reverse may also be true.  It's quite possible to be a scientist 
and an engineer and have a good grasp of and informed opinions about 
relevant public policy issues.

>  So from about 1996 on there has been a very severe cultural 
>adaptation process for the Internet technical developer community, 
>as they have been forced to come to terms

I don't think coercion is the best metaphor to use in terms of how 
the technical community has evolved.  Some people do have problems 
adjusting their world view in light of major shifts in the 
environment around them, but others, as you note, have had no problem 
comprehending the larger picture.  The list does not stop with David 
Clark (referenced below).

>  with politics and with new kinds of stakeholders and different 
>communities of knowledge, ranging from trademark lawyers to 
>entrepreneurs to free expression advocacy groups to democracy 
>advocates in internet governance. Some of them have managed to do 
>this relatively gracefully (e.g., David Clark) others have not.
>
>Second, among this technical group it is just not true that the 
>treatment you receive will be based entirely or even primarily on 
>the ideas you contribute, unless perhaps those ideas are about 
>computer science,

You paint a picture of very narrow interest here,  The I* community's 
interests, and its expertise, are considerably broader than computer 
science.  Perhaps you should get to know this community.  This 
ill-informed attitude is shared by too many people in the public 
policy sphere who argue that implementation and use of technology are 
too important to be left to technologists.  If you add the word 
"only" to that sentence, I would agree, not otherwise.

>  which no one here or on the Arin PPML is discussing. IETF and the 
>institutions that have emerged out of it have at their core a group 
>of predominantly American and European white males, all computer 
>scientists, who have known each other and worked together 
>intensively for 30 years. They form a tightly-knit social network. 
>They have their own culture. The treatment you will receive from 
>this group depends on who you know in that group and what they say 
>about you.

My evidence is contrary to this, and not only from my own point of 
view.  The best example I can think of is one of a lawyer from a 
rights advocacy group who started an IETF process to look at the 
privacy implications of the standards that were in the process of 
development.  He was welcomed and respected.

>  Full stop. Once you get on the bad side of one or two of these 
>people, it doesn't matter what you say or how much you know about 
>relevant issues, you will not be listened to. You are marked as an 
>outsider and an enemy and that's that.

I believe that this is an incorrect representation of the truth.

>  >In terms of treatment of individuals, this is one of
>  >the fairest, most egalitarian groups I know.
>
>That's because you're one of them, George. You are in no position to 
>comment on how people who are unknown to them, have different forms 
>of knowledge and speak a different conceptual language will be 
>treated.

Actually, I am not one of them, at least one of them at the NANOG, 
RIR or IETF level.  I have never been involved in IETF work, because 
at the level at which they operate. I don't consider myself technical 
at their level.

>  >It believes
>>in working toward results and agreeing on the basis of
>>rough consensus and running code.  To be fair, the operational
>>test of running code is a metric more easily available in
>>science and engineering disciplines than it is in many other
>>dimensions of human affairs but it is an ideal that
>>other groups might wish to take into account.
>
>This is the catechism, we've heard it before. As a profession of 
>your Faith I respect it.

My opinion about the IETF other institutions that manage critical 
Internet resources is not based on faith, but observation.  It is not 
a profession of faith, and I don't like your attempt demean it.

>  And I certainly respect the legacy technical and operational 
>accomplishments of that group. As you yourself sense, however, those 
>metrics do not apply easily to political, economic and public policy 
>contexts. And in your rush to defend the innate fairness of your 
>group,

Is this your profession of faith that I rushed?   Did you see me? 
Actually, I deliberated for awhile whether it was worth doing.  My 
fear was that I would be attacked for posting what I thought might 
have been an explanation   --  not a justification  --  for allegedly 
rude behavior by Randy.  And I guess my fear was justified.

>  you may have obscured the more important point Avri and I were 
>trying to make, which is that there is a world of IG-related 
>institutions and activities outside of the IGF, and the success of 
>the IGF rests on integrating it with them.

Well, we could have a long discussion about what is meant by "success 
of the IGF" but I think it would be pointless.

>So let's all sit back and wait for Suresh's inevitable personal 
>attack, let it pass, and then continue the dialogue on that topic.

These ad hominem attacks help no one except maybe you.  Take the chip 
of your shoulder; it's neither pretty nor productive.


Here's my bottom line.  By and large, Internet organizations with 
which I'm familiar are open and welcome involvement by others.  But; 
like any other social group, it helps to know something about the 
subject first (or just admit that you're a newbie and there to listen 
and learn), and to enter the group with a cooperative and 
collaborative attitude  --  an to expect that there maybe some jerks 
in the group, but they're probably a small minority.

>
>--MM

George

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 29 11:13:45 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:13:45 -0400
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and
Message-ID: <s83e9008.043@gwia203.syr.edu>

Avri,

A quick note to agree that a wide-angle lens as well as zoom can be
useful for igc.  

For the moment, building consensus on IGF 2.0 - a sustainable/renewable
post 2010 IGF - still seems a top priority. Of course ICANN won;t go
away as a topic nor should it; and in addition to RIRs a longer list of
internet governance institutions may or may not come into focus over
time. But I agree only talking IGF all the time is too narrow.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> avri at psg.com 05/28/08 2:37 PM >>>

On 26 May 2008, at 16:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> IGF is ... , even though this caucus is organized primarily around  
> it, ...

in the midst of many angst ridden messages this statement went by.


i have been questioning this statement since then.

while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci for this  
caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary one.  and  
whether it should be.   (as should be obvious, i personally think the  
IGF is a wonderful entity to focus on.  if only i had more hours in  
the day.)

certainly a lot gets said about ICANN, and since much of the concern  
with IGF seems ICANN related, one could argue that ICANN figures into  
the category of things the IGC is concerned with and could organize  
itself around.  remember mid 2009 is not all that far away.

we have also gotten periodic appeals from the RIRs, to get invovled -  
they seem to want CS people to get involved and they come to us asking  
for some involvement.  perhaps we could include them among the  
concerns we organize ourselves around.

and periodically countries have done IGish things that the IGC could  
have (should have) been up in arms about.  perhaps these do could be  
included in the IGC circle of care.

in some respects, this suggestion seems nuts, we don't seem to have  
enough active members to even cover the IGC adequately.  and i  
certainly have no wish to jeopardize the IGC's efforts vis a vis the  
IGf.   but perhaps, having a broader stage for IGC participation and  
yes, even advocacy, might inspire a few more of the silent watchers to  
have something they care to get involved in.  it could happen?

a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Thu May 29 11:27:14 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:27:14 -0400
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we need
 a MAG?
In-Reply-To: <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>

Hi,

I just wanted to point out a correction to Adam's original remark and  
hence to Jeremy's comment n it.

There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove   
the OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of the members of the  
group did quit at one point, but as you will notice, the OCDC is still  
listed on the IGF's DC page: http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php 
  . Ie. "the MAG and Secretariat never stepped in."  I would note that  
there have not been any postings in the OCDC (http://igf-online.net)  
other then from Jeremy in a while.

To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF Remote Participation  
Working Group" mentioned by Ginger, have been barred from comment at  
any meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio which, if I recall,  
Jeremy read out  http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt 
, and comments from the IGF Remote Participation WG were read out in  
Geneva at the last consultations.

Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be listed as one of the  
DCs.  It is my assumption that if this group wishes to be listed as  
one of the DCs, it only needs to send information, in the same format  
as the other DCs, to the IGF office with the request.

a.

On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

>
>>>>
>>
>> Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your  
>> dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat  
>> and MAG stepped in.
>
> ...

>  First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the  
> concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic  
> Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members who had  
> been members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a shame that  
> you couldn't have been open about your intentions at the time.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 29 11:39:48 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 21:09:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <p06200786c46445f0b7ee@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018840E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06200786c46445f0b7ee@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <069b01c8c1a2$3bf788c0$b3e69a40$@net>

> opinions are treated with some respect.  It's certainly true that
> there are people who are mercurial and who take offense without
> offense being given, and Randy is known to have a shorter temper than
> others.  That's an unfortunate fact of life on this planet.  Perhaps
> there are some people like that on this list also.

Randy's a special case. 

He goes well out of his way to help (I lost count of just how many
developing country ccTLDs are secondaried by psg.com servers?)

Yes he has a short fuse and he doesn't suffer fools gladly - but well, he
tends to be right far more often than not, and I've known him to admit when
he's on the wrong side of an argument (that happens rarely but yes, I've
known it to happen)

> >  They may or may not understand the legal, social, political or
> >economic implications of what they are doing any better than an
> >ordinary person.
> 
> The reverse may also be true.  It's quite possible to be a scientist
> and an engineer and have a good grasp of and informed opinions about
> relevant public policy issues.

And it may be quite possible to be a public policy person who has little or
no grasp of relevant technical issues.

Which is why there's the DIPLO course, and various other such, that serve as
a bridge.

> >  Full stop. Once you get on the bad side of one or two of these
> >people, it doesn't matter what you say or how much you know about
> >relevant issues, you will not be listened to. You are marked as an
> >outsider and an enemy and that's that.
> 
> I believe that this is an incorrect representation of the truth.

It tends to take far more than one or two - even if those one or two are
veterans of whatever process - for such a situation to occur. Normally at
least.

> Actually, I am not one of them, at least one of them at the NANOG,
> RIR or IETF level.  I have never been involved in IETF work, because
> at the level at which they operate. I don't consider myself technical
> at their level.

I don't know the first thing about routers - and have a foggy, at best, idea
of what'd get classed as routing 101.  But RIR and *NOG meetings are where a
whole lot of regional internet governance already takes place.  It isn't all
about the nuts and bolts of anycasting, metro Ethernet, sinkholes or
whatever else.

Just for example, APRICOT - held this feb in Taipei (next feb in Manila)
has, over the years, hosted meetings of regional ccTLDs, antispam
regulators, CCERTs, ISOC, the IAB (ISOC/IAB - this was in 2005 at Perth, and
Jeremy can tell you how successful that one was).. panels on the middle east
fiber cut and the asiapac earthquake fiber cuts too, from the people whose
fibers got cut and who spent an entire holiday season fixing things.  Quite
a lot of these were certainly not focused simply on packet pushing or dns or
protocols.

	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  Thu May 29 11:47:08 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:47:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <p0620075dc461e20c4238@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <p0624080fc46034c5f639@[221.115.9.42]> <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net> <p0620075dc461e20c4238@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <20080529154708.GA27885@nic.fr>

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:45:43PM -0400,
 George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote 
 a message of 92 lines which said:

> Beyond that, I don't think any group claims to represent the
> Internet community in any formal sense.

Several groups *claim* to do so. ISOC, ICANN, the RIRs, often say they
represent "the community" (a term as broad and as meaningless as
"civil society").

See <http://www.icann.org/tr/english.html> for just an example:

ICANN

The global Internet community working together to promote the stability and integrity 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Thu May 29 11:56:36 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:56:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <20080529155636.GC27885@nic.fr>

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:25:48PM -0400,
 George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote 
 a message of 67 lines which said:

> IETF operates as a meritocracy.  It has no legal existence, and
> anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting.  it doesn't
> matter where you are from, who you work for, what color, gender you
> are, or any other attribute of your personal life and/or beliefs
> that have no bearing on how well you think, contribute or perform.
> Once you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost
> completely by the ideas that you contribute to the discussion.

The good thing about the IETF is that it values plain and frank
speaking (unlike UN organizations or ICANN which value diplomatic
speech).

That's why, to rebuke your affirmation, you can use IETF documents
themselves. For instance, the RFC 3774 "IETF Problem Statement"
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3774.txt> explains very clearly why your
representation is too idealistic.

Other IETF material, such as Thomas Narten's excellent tutorial for
IETF beginners, which are performed at the beginning of every IETF
meeting <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/newwork-0.pdf >,
also say quite the opposite of the nice legend you described. For
instance, the opinions of known people count *much* more.

> In therms of treatment of individuals, this is one of the fairest, most 
> egalitarian groups I know. 

Sure, IETF is more open than the GAC, less secretive than the ISO,
technically better than ITU, etc. Big deal. "In the kingdom of blind
men the one-eyed is king."

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 29 12:02:48 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 19:02:48 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080529154708.GA27885@nic.fr>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
	 <p0624080fc46034c5f639@221.115.9.42>
	 <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net> <p0620075dc461e20c4238@10.0.1.2>
	 <20080529154708.GA27885@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805290902s5da4240ew91324a93adac8c2c@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:45:43PM -0400,
>  George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote
>  a message of 92 lines which said:
>
>> Beyond that, I don't think any group claims to represent the
>> Internet community in any formal sense.
>
> Several groups *claim* to do so. ISOC, ICANN, the RIRs, often say they
> represent "the community" (a term as broad and as meaningless as
> "civil society").

If it's meaningless, then how would the NomCom know who to exclude,
since they didn't have a list to work from?  Do you think it was a
case of "we can't tell you who we are excluding, but we will know them
if we see their names?"

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu May 29 12:11:34 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 21:41:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <20080529155636.GC27885@nic.fr>
References: <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]> <20080529155636.GC27885@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <06ac01c8c1a6$ac353840$049fa8c0$@net>

> Other IETF material, such as Thomas Narten's excellent tutorial for
> IETF beginners, which are performed at the beginning of every IETF
> meeting <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/newwork-0.pdf >,
> also say quite the opposite of the nice legend you described. For
> instance, the opinions of known people count *much* more.

Even then, you wont find people blindly swallowing an idea just because its
from Randy, or Dave Crocker, or ... 

What you're describing is natural in any forum, not just IETF. Trust /
reputation in a peer group, for one .. and a breadth of experience. Both
these count.

	srs

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Thu May 29 12:24:34 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:24:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080529154708.GA27885@nic.fr>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
 <p0624080fc46034c5f639@[221.115.9.42]>
 <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net> <p0620075dc461e20c4238@[10.0.1.2]>
 <20080529154708.GA27885@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <p0620078ac46488886c20@[10.0.1.2]>

Dear Stephane,

I've scanned the page referenced for the string "represent' and I 
come up with this unique occurrence:

"As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving 
the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; 
to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and 
to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, 
consensus-based processes"

I don't think that achieving broad representation of the Internet 
community _within_ ICANN is the same as ICANN representing the 
community.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 5:47 PM +0200 5/29/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:45:43PM -0400,
>  George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote
>  a message of 92 lines which said:
>
>>  Beyond that, I don't think any group claims to represent the
>>  Internet community in any formal sense.
>
>Several groups *claim* to do so. ISOC, ICANN, the RIRs, often say they
>represent "the community" (a term as broad and as meaningless as
>"civil society").
>
>See <http://www.icann.org/tr/english.html> for just an example:
>
>ICANN
>
>The global Internet community working together to promote the 
>stability and integrity 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080529/60a63206/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu May 29 12:28:31 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 18:28:31 +0200
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
Message-ID: <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>

Hi

My two cents : I have to agree with Avri. To my knowledge the MAG didn't 
not take any decision to stop the OCDC (I can't remember neither any 
formal discussion about stopping a working group or DC). It's however 
true that some MAG members, who were members of this group, announced 
that they were leaving it (I understood they said it was not working 
properly).But there was no MAG decision about it.

Rgds

KL

Avri Doria a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to point out a correction to Adam's original remark and 
> hence to Jeremy's comment n it.
>
> There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove  
> the OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of the members of the 
> group did quit at one point, but as you will notice, the OCDC is still 
> listed on the IGF's DC page: 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php . Ie. "the MAG and 
> Secretariat never stepped in."  I would note that there have not been 
> any postings in the OCDC (http://igf-online.net) other then from 
> Jeremy in a while.
>
> To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF Remote Participation 
> Working Group" mentioned by Ginger, have been barred from comment at 
> any meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio which, if I recall, 
> Jeremy read out  
> http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt, 
> and comments from the IGF Remote Participation WG were read out in 
> Geneva at the last consultations.
>
> Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be listed as one of the 
> DCs.  It is my assumption that if this group wishes to be listed as 
> one of the DCs, it only needs to send information, in the same format 
> as the other DCs, to the IGF office with the request.
>
> a.
>
> On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your 
>>> dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
>>> and MAG stepped in.
>>
>> ...
>
>>  First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the 
>> concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic 
>> Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members who had 
>> been members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a shame that 
>> you couldn't have been open about your intentions at the time.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Thu May 29 12:41:51 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:41:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <20080529155636.GC27885@nic.fr>
References: <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]>
 <20080529155636.GC27885@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <p0620078cc4648a0fc7bb@[10.0.1.2]>

Dear Stephane,

Thank you very much for referencing these two key documents.  I hope 
people on the list look at them.

i take your point that the IETF is not perfect.  But I also note that 
the first reference concentrates on the problem statement and the way 
to improve the situation.  I quote:

"Taken in isolation, this document may appear to be exceedingly 
negative.  The IETF needs to refresh its management and processes to 
address today's challenges, but it should not be forgotten that the 
IETF has produced a large body of high quality work which has lead to 
an extremely successful and pervasive network infrastructure. 
Against this background, we should see the current document as a 
necessary piece of self-criticism leading to renewal and continued 
success."

I think that's a pretty good objective.

The Narten document rightly tries to acclimatize newbies to the IETF 
culture.  As you point out, it's really different than the UN 
culture, or any other where diplomacy is a major factor.

I'm not comparing the IETF to a golden ideal that might be achieved 
when we all attain god-like status.  I'm comparing it to other 
organizations here on earth.  Given the pervasiveness of favoritism, 
corruption, and non-representativeness that unfortunately are 
commonplace in  human institutions, in my opinion the IETF stands out 
as a fair body, oriented to real results, and using the best talent 
offered to it to produce those results.

It is true that some opinions count much more than others. I never 
denied that.  But the reason those opinions count much more is 
probably that they are held by someone with lots of experience and 
with a good track record of producing for the organization,  NOT that 
they are the opinions of a nephew of a powerful cabinet minister (for 
example).

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 5:56 PM +0200 5/29/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:25:48PM -0400,
>  George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote
>  a message of 67 lines which said:
>
>>  IETF operates as a meritocracy.  It has no legal existence, and
>>  anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting.  it doesn't
>>  matter where you are from, who you work for, what color, gender you
>>  are, or any other attribute of your personal life and/or beliefs
>>  that have no bearing on how well you think, contribute or perform.
>>  Once you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost
>>  completely by the ideas that you contribute to the discussion.
>
>The good thing about the IETF is that it values plain and frank
>speaking (unlike UN organizations or ICANN which value diplomatic
>speech).
>
>That's why, to rebuke your affirmation, you can use IETF documents
>themselves. For instance, the RFC 3774 "IETF Problem Statement"
><http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3774.txt> explains very clearly why your
>representation is too idealistic.
>
>Other IETF material, such as Thomas Narten's excellent tutorial for
>IETF beginners, which are performed at the beginning of every IETF
>meeting <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/newwork-0.pdf>,
>also say quite the opposite of the nice legend you described. For
>instance, the opinions of known people count *much* more.
>
>>  In therms of treatment of individuals, this is one of the fairest, most
>>  egalitarian groups I know.
>
>Sure, IETF is more open than the GAC, less secretive than the ISO,
>technically better than ITU, etc. Big deal. "In the kingdom of blind
>men the one-eyed is king."
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080529/61cdbd43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 29 13:06:57 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 02:06:57 +0900
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
 <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240830c46491c78686@[192.168.1.2]>

At 11:27 AM -0400 5/29/08, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I just wanted to point out a correction to 
>Adam's original remark and hence to Jeremy's 
>comment n it.
>
>There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove  
>the OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of 
>the members of the group did quit at one point, 
>but as you will notice, the OCDC is still listed 
>on the IGF's DC page: 
>http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php 
>. Ie. "the MAG and Secretariat never stepped in."


Avri,

Best I can remember there were chat rooms and 
email addresses (in multiple languages), who set 
those up and monitored them?

(igf-ocdc at igf-online.net list not cc'd.)

Thanks,

Adam



>  I would note that there have not been any 
>postings in the OCDC (http://igf-online.net) 
>other then from Jeremy in a while.
>
>To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF 
>Remote Participation Working Group" mentioned by 
>Ginger, have been barred from comment at any 
>meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio 
>which, if I recall, Jeremy read out 
>http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt, 
>and comments from the IGF Remote Participation 
>WG were read out in Geneva at the last 
>consultations.
>
>Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be 
>listed as one of the DCs.  It is my assumption 
>that if this group wishes to be listed as one of 
>the DCs, it only needs to send information, in 
>the same format as the other DCs, to the IGF 
>office with the request.
>
>a.
>
>On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>>On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had 
>>>made no progress, your dynamic coalition (I 
>>>was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
>>>and MAG stepped in.
>>
>>...
>
>>  First, this is the first public acknowledgment 
>>I've seen of the concerted back-room move to 
>>crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic 
>>Coalition, as part of which you and the other 
>>MAG members who had been members of its mailing 
>>list left en masse.  It is a shame that you 
>>couldn't have been open about your intentions 
>>at the time.
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 29 13:23:10 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:23:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: organizational orientation
Message-ID: <s83eae46.073@gwia203.syr.edu>

Stephane, George,

To try to square the circle, as I sometimes do, just as Ebay ranks
buyers and sellers by reputation of past interactions, so do IETFers. 

Meaning if you had sensible good things to say on a prior round of IETF
work, you are more likely to be listened to the next time. Maybe that is
just a formalism of the old boy network, but old boys don;t usually tear
each other down (and with such glee) if they stray from saying
technically sensible things, as IETFers sometimes do.  Reminds me
of...this listserv ; )

So agreed it's far from perfect, and yeah if you don;t know your way
around you may feel alienated. 

On other hand it's been using virtual tools to enable and encourage both
real-time and asynchronous remote participation like forever, a practice
IGF and MAG is apparently finding difficult to replicate. 

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 05/29/08 12:41 PM >>>
Dear Stephane,

Thank you very much for referencing these two key documents.  I hope 
people on the list look at them.

i take your point that the IETF is not perfect.  But I also note that 
the first reference concentrates on the problem statement and the way 
to improve the situation.  I quote:

"Taken in isolation, this document may appear to be exceedingly 
negative.  The IETF needs to refresh its management and processes to 
address today's challenges, but it should not be forgotten that the 
IETF has produced a large body of high quality work which has lead to 
an extremely successful and pervasive network infrastructure. 
Against this background, we should see the current document as a 
necessary piece of self-criticism leading to renewal and continued 
success."

I think that's a pretty good objective.

The Narten document rightly tries to acclimatize newbies to the IETF 
culture.  As you point out, it's really different than the UN 
culture, or any other where diplomacy is a major factor.

I'm not comparing the IETF to a golden ideal that might be achieved 
when we all attain god-like status.  I'm comparing it to other 
organizations here on earth.  Given the pervasiveness of favoritism, 
corruption, and non-representativeness that unfortunately are 
commonplace in  human institutions, in my opinion the IETF stands out 
as a fair body, oriented to real results, and using the best talent 
offered to it to produce those results.

It is true that some opinions count much more than others. I never 
denied that.  But the reason those opinions count much more is 
probably that they are held by someone with lots of experience and 
with a good track record of producing for the organization,  NOT that 
they are the opinions of a nephew of a powerful cabinet minister (for 
example).

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 5:56 PM +0200 5/29/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:25:48PM -0400,
>  George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote
>  a message of 67 lines which said:
>
>>  IETF operates as a meritocracy.  It has no legal existence, and
>>  anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting.  it doesn't
>>  matter where you are from, who you work for, what color, gender you
>>  are, or any other attribute of your personal life and/or beliefs
>>  that have no bearing on how well you think, contribute or perform.
>>  Once you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost
>>  completely by the ideas that you contribute to the discussion.
>
>The good thing about the IETF is that it values plain and frank
>speaking (unlike UN organizations or ICANN which value diplomatic
>speech).
>
>That's why, to rebuke your affirmation, you can use IETF documents
>themselves. For instance, the RFC 3774 "IETF Problem Statement"
><http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3774.txt> explains very clearly why your
>representation is too idealistic.
>
>Other IETF material, such as Thomas Narten's excellent tutorial for
>IETF beginners, which are performed at the beginning of every IETF
>meeting <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/newwork-0.pdf>,
>also say quite the opposite of the nice legend you described. For
>instance, the opinions of known people count *much* more.
>
>>  In therms of treatment of individuals, this is one of the fairest,
most
>>  egalitarian groups I know.
>
>Sure, IETF is more open than the GAC, less secretive than the ISO,
>technically better than ITU, etc. Big deal. "In the kingdom of blind
>men the one-eyed is king."
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 29 13:44:47 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 02:44:47 +0900
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <p06200786c46445f0b7ee@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018840E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06200786c46445f0b7ee@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <p06240832c464946e25d7@[192.168.1.2]>

>Comments below,
>


<snip>


>>  which no one here or on the Arin PPML is discussing. IETF and the 
>>institutions that have emerged out of it have at their core a group 
>>of predominantly American and European white males, all computer 
>>scientists, who have known each other and worked together 
>>intensively for 30 years. They form a tightly-knit social network. 
>>They have their own culture. The treatment you will receive from 
>>this group depends on who you know in that group and what they say 
>>about you.
>
>My evidence is contrary to this, and not only from my own point of 
>view.  The best example I can think of is one of a lawyer from a 
>rights advocacy group who started an IETF process to look at the 
>privacy implications of the standards that were in the process of 
>development.  He was welcomed and respected.


I know the same person (and won't name them as I haven't permission 
to quote or paraphrase, but George can check easily enough.)  He was 
welcomed and respected and was able to influence the direction of a 
couple of essential (in my view) standards.  But he also told me it 
took a couple of meetings and a record of contribution on working 
group mailing lists to be accepted and essentially become a 
functioning part of the group. You need to speak their language, and 
make clear that you are there to see it through. Once you are able to 
show you are serious, know your stuff, you're in.

I think this is important --  for one thing I think to shows probably 
George and Milton are correct.  My experience with RIRs has been more 
welcoming/speedy, at least in the early days of APNIC, perhaps things 
have changed.

As one of our interests is capacity building and enabling 
participation of new people (developing countries) to governance 
processes then the story of our lawyer and the IETF (lawyer also with 
computing background, so he wasn't like a legal bambi wandering among 
geek hunters) is worrying.

For the future of the IETF it's worrying (Jeanette knows much more 
about this), the reason I spoke to this person was as part of a 
project looking at governance processes for standards making around 
NGN/Internet. Head of standards of a large EU telco said one reason 
they'd reduced the numbers they sent to the IETF was that it took new 
people so long to be accepted.  And in large teams the same person 
may not go each time (even in small teams.) ETSI, ITU and some new 
forums they set up specifically because of such problems are more 
welcoming, if you have the right name badge and say something that 
makes sense people listen.  If you come from the same department as 
someone who made sense at the previous meeting, people listen.  If 
you talk rubbish, you get ignored whatever your name badge (except in 
the more political ITU WG where you're made chair :-)  ... that's my 
guess, not what the telco guy said.)

And of course I expect the telco guy was spinning his own story in 
favor of an NGN that was more to his telco liking.  And I am not 
trying to imply the IETF does bad work and ETSI good (what would I 
know...), but if the carriers aren't there, there are problems.


>>  Full stop. Once you get on the bad side of one or two of these 
>>people, it doesn't matter what you say or how much you know about 
>>relevant issues, you will not be listened to. You are marked as an 
>>outsider and an enemy and that's that.
>
>I believe that this is an incorrect representation of the truth.


It's whether you read this as black/white.  With shades of grey I can 
think of a number of very smart people who speak at ICANN. 
Successful, thoughtful people who spend a lot of personal time on the 
organization, not just to make money (partly) or for self-promotion, 
and who are ignored more often than they should be.  They are not 
outsiders, just not insiders.

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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Thu May 29 15:00:54 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:00:54 -0400
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@221.115.9.42>
	 <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
	 <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <45ed74050805291200x1d44dda7o206fc4c14342ed42@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

I hope nothing's  crushed - because if I go back through archives there's
all that good educational material from the documentation when at the last
minute i couldn't go to Rio (siiiiiiiiiigh), but we interacted online in
chat rooms and plenary sidebars.  I thank you all for it and perhaps if you
wish could put something together on the topic.

Warm regards,
LDMF
*Respectful Interfaces*.

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> My two cents : I have to agree with Avri. To my knowledge the MAG didn't
> not take any decision to stop the OCDC (I can't remember neither any formal
> discussion about stopping a working group or DC). It's however true that
> some MAG members, who were members of this group, announced that they were
> leaving it (I understood they said it was not working properly).But there
> was no MAG decision about it.
>
> Rgds
>
> KL
>
> Avri Doria a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just wanted to point out a correction to Adam's original remark and
>> hence to Jeremy's comment n it.
>>
>> There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove  the
>> OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of the members of the group did quit
>> at one point, but as you will notice, the OCDC is still listed on the IGF's
>> DC page: http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php . Ie. "the
>> MAG and Secretariat never stepped in."  I would note that there have not
>> been any postings in the OCDC (http://igf-online.net) other then from
>> Jeremy in a while.
>>
>> To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF Remote Participation
>> Working Group" mentioned by Ginger, have been barred from comment at any
>> meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio which, if I recall, Jeremy
>> read out
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt,
>> and comments from the IGF Remote Participation WG were read out in Geneva at
>> the last consultations.
>>
>> Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be listed as one of the DCs.  It
>> is my assumption that if this group wishes to be listed as one of the DCs,
>> it only needs to send information, in the same format as the other DCs, to
>> the IGF office with the request.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your
>>>> dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat and MAG
>>>> stepped in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>>  First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the concerted
>>> back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, as part
>>> of which you and the other MAG members who had been members of its mailing
>>> list left en masse.  It is a shame that you couldn't have been open about
>>> your intentions at the time.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080529/e3e92c1f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 29 15:42:10 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:42:10 -0400
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <p06240830c46491c78686@[192.168.1.2]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <p06240830c46491c78686@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <A3116736-7ED7-46F1-9321-86F827B53E63@psg.com>

Hi,

I am not sure I what you mean.

There were the email addresses set up by the IGF that several people  
monitored. I would need to check further to know who monitored which  
one, when.  Didn't you do some of that as well?

As for chat rooms.  I remember Kieren and Jeremy set up some in  
Athens, but do not think they did so in Rio .  In Rio the Secretariat  
worked with a chat setup that was being provided by the Brazilian  
Ministry of Culture, but it was a new tool and we had trouble fitting  
it into the meeting.  This is the same tool we have been providing as  
an experiment for the consultations this year.  And while there was  
only one comment that got displayed at the last meeting, there was a  
discussion ongoing in this chat room about the technical details and  
issues with the broadcast.  I.e. the chat functionality does work and  
has worked the last two consultations.  I expect it will be provided  
again in the future.

a.

On 29 May 2008, at 13:06, Adam Peake wrote:

> At 11:27 AM -0400 5/29/08, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just wanted to point out a correction to Adam's original remark  
>> and hence to Jeremy's comment n it.
>>
>> There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove
>> the OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of the members of the  
>> group did quit at one point, but as you will notice, the OCDC is  
>> still listed on the IGF's DC page: http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php 
>>  . Ie. "the MAG and Secretariat never stepped in."
>
>
> Avri,
>
> Best I can remember there were chat rooms and email addresses (in  
> multiple languages), who set those up and monitored them?
>
> (igf-ocdc at igf-online.net list not cc'd.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>> I would note that there have not been any postings in the OCDC (http://igf-online.net 
>> ) other then from Jeremy in a while.
>>
>> To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF Remote Participation  
>> Working Group" mentioned by Ginger, have been barred from comment  
>> at any meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio which, if I  
>> recall, Jeremy read out http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt 
>> , and comments from the IGF Remote Participation WG were read out  
>> in Geneva at the last consultations.
>>
>> Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be listed as one of the  
>> DCs.  It is my assumption that if this group wishes to be listed as  
>> one of the DCs, it only needs to send information, in the same  
>> format as the other DCs, to the IGF office with the request.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your  
>>>> dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the  
>>>> secretariat and MAG stepped in.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>> First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the  
>>> concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic  
>>> Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members who had  
>>> been members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a shame  
>>> that you couldn't have been open about your intentions at the time.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 29 16:15:14 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:15:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <p0620078ac46488886c20@10.0.1.2>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
	 <p0624080fc46034c5f639@221.115.9.42>
	 <03cd01c8c00d$d3b7e010$7b27a030$@net> <p0620075dc461e20c4238@10.0.1.2>
	 <20080529154708.GA27885@nic.fr> <p0620078ac46488886c20@10.0.1.2>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805291315v1195b230h5a6b025a0b091c13@mail.gmail.com>

George,

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM, George Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think that achieving broad representation of the Internet community
> _within_ ICANN is the same as ICANN representing the community.

Agreed.  However, I think we are straying OT for this thread.  In
other words, this is about "US" and our processes, not about THEM
(whoever "them" is), and their processes.

If we are to institutionalize this decision (by doing nothing, we
ensure that a future politically motivated NomCom can point to this
"precedent" to justify their actions) then don't we need a list of who
its "ok" for future NomComs to exclude?  If we don't make such a list,
then a future Nomcom with a majority of folk who don't agree with the
ideas of "org x" can exclude "org x" staff from being nominated by the
IGC (insert your org name for the variable "x", and you might see
where i am going).

Which academics does this cover is another question this decision
raises.  Are we excluding ALL professors and staff of the University
of Maryland, or just the staff involved with running "D"?  How about
"B", do we exclude all USC academics or just those who work at ISI?

And NASA, do we exclude all their rocket scientists, or just those at
Ames ("E")?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 29 22:48:38 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:48:38 +0900
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <A3116736-7ED7-46F1-9321-86F827B53E63@psg.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
 <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
 <p06240830c46491c78686@[192.168.1.2]>
 <A3116736-7ED7-46F1-9321-86F827B53E63@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240800c46514168ff5@[192.168.1.2]>




>Hi,
>
>I am not sure I what you mean.


I was trying to remind you of something :-)

I should probably have written "So the secretariat and MAG stepped 
up"  rather than "So the secretariat and MAG stepped in."


>There were the email addresses set up by the IGF that several people 
>monitored. I would need to check further to know who monitored which 
>one, when.  Didn't you do some of that as well?


I know the MAG monitored email addresses, English, Spanish, French, 
Portuguese. I kind of arranged that to happen (the monitoring, not 
the setting up of the actual lists, that was Chengetai or coordinated 
by Chengetai with the local hosts.)

And you monitored the chat rooms, and had it read to display if needed, right?

When I wrote "So the secretariat and MAG stepped in" I didn't mean to 
imply anyone stopped any dynamic coalition from doing anything, we 
simply did something that needed to be done.

Adam



>As for chat rooms.  I remember Kieren and Jeremy set up some in 
>Athens, but do not think they did so in Rio .  In Rio the 
>Secretariat worked with a chat setup that was being provided by the 
>Brazilian Ministry of Culture, but it was a new tool and we had 
>trouble fitting it into the meeting.  This is the same tool we have 
>been providing as an experiment for the consultations this year. 
>And while there was only one comment that got displayed at the last 
>meeting, there was a discussion ongoing in this chat room about the 
>technical details and issues with the broadcast.  I.e. the chat 
>functionality does work and has worked the last two consultations. 
>I expect it will be provided again in the future.
>
>a.
>
>On 29 May 2008, at 13:06, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>At 11:27 AM -0400 5/29/08, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I just wanted to point out a correction to Adam's original remark 
>>>and hence to Jeremy's comment n it.
>>>
>>>There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove
>>>the OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of the members of the 
>>>group did quit at one point, but as you will notice, the OCDC is 
>>>still listed on the IGF's DC page: 
>>>http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php . Ie. "the MAG 
>>>and Secretariat never stepped in."
>>
>>
>>Avri,
>>
>>Best I can remember there were chat rooms and email addresses (in 
>>multiple languages), who set those up and monitored them?
>>
>>(igf-ocdc at igf-online.net list not cc'd.)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>>I would note that there have not been any postings in the OCDC 
>>>(http://igf-online.net) other then from Jeremy in a while.
>>>
>>>To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF Remote 
>>>Participation Working Group" mentioned by Ginger, have been barred 
>>>from comment at any meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio 
>>>which, if I recall, Jeremy read out 
>>>http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt, 
>>>and comments from the IGF Remote Participation WG were read out in 
>>>Geneva at the last consultations.
>>>
>>>Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be listed as one of the 
>>>DCs.  It is my assumption that if this group wishes to be listed 
>>>as one of the DCs, it only needs to send information, in the same 
>>>format as the other DCs, to the IGF office with the request.
>>>
>>>a.
>>>
>>>On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, 
>>>>>your dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the 
>>>>>secretariat and MAG stepped in.
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>
>>>>First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the 
>>>>concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration 
>>>>Dynamic Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members 
>>>>who had been members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a 
>>>>shame that you couldn't have been open about your intentions at 
>>>>the time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 29 23:23:24 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:23:24 -0400
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <p06240800c46514168ff5@[192.168.1.2]>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <p06240830c46491c78686@[192.168.1.2]> <A3116736-7ED7-46F1-9321-86F827B53E63@psg.com> <p
 06240800c46514168ff5@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <9FD8D9EE-9470-40BB-A37A-BBC5146FF3C1@psg.com>


On 29 May 2008, at 22:48, Adam Peake wrote:

> I should probably have written "So the secretariat and MAG stepped  
> up"  rather than "So the secretariat and MAG stepped in."

Ah, English the language that divides native speakers from each other.

>
>
> I know the MAG monitored email addresses, English, Spanish, French,  
> Portuguese. I kind of arranged that to happen (the monitoring, not  
> the setting up of the actual lists, that was Chengetai or  
> coordinated by Chengetai with the local hosts.)

Yes i remember that.

>
>
> And you monitored the chat rooms, and had it read to display if  
> needed, right?

now that you remind me!  originally I only remembered not having  
succeeded getting it displayed on the screen and forget about printing  
up chat messages for the moderator to read.

it is like tests, i only remember what i get wrong.

thanks

a.




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri May 30 00:31:34 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:31:34 +0800
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic
In-Reply-To: <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
 <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
Message-ID: <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch>

Hi

Quoting Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>:

> while i agree that the IGF is one of the most visible IG foci for this
> caucus at the moment, i wonder whether it is the primary one.  and
> whether it should be.   (as should be obvious, i personally think the
> IGF is a wonderful entity to focus on.  if only i had more hours in
> the day.)
>
> certainly a lot gets said about ICANN, and since much of the concern
> with IGF seems ICANN related, one could argue that ICANN figures into
> the category of things the IGC is concerned with and could organize
> itself around.  remember mid 2009 is not all that far away.

It's natural that a caucus formed to address IG in WSIS would focus on the main
IG outcome of WSIS.  And it's not surprising that within that context, ICANN
issues predominate, since that's a leading interest of many of the folks that
have opted in.  Nevertheless, it's worth recalling that there is a lot of IG
stuff going on not only in other technical/admin bodies/processes (IETF, RIRs,
etc) but also in various intergovernmental and private sector organizations.
Moreover, in some of these cases there are quite active and effective CS
coalitions involved that seem to spend more time on effective advocacy than on
fratricide. The crowd that's pushed access to knowledge and the development
agenda in WIPO
provides one obvious example, some of the coalitions around digital
trade/e-commerce, privacy, etc. offer others.  It would be interesting to do a
comparison and contrast of these experiences, identify lessons learned and
best/worst practices, etc.

One current example in which I really wish the caucus had gotten engaged
concerns the upcoming OECD ministerial meeting in Seoul on the future of the
Internet economy.  The OECD---which does not generally include CS per se in its
ICT work, just invites individual 'experts' to certain meetings---decided,
post-WSIS, to make a big effort to hold a multistakeholder meeting. They've
invited business, the technical community (recognized as such, organized by
ISOC), and civil society (mixed uncomfortably with organized labor) each to
hold day-long public forums, provide input documents to the main meeting,
provide a few speakers for the main meeting, etc.  The Korean government is
paying travel and accommodation for CS forum speakers and some attendees.  The
CS coalition that came together for this purpose is hosted electronically by
EPIC's Public Voice platform, and forum programming etc was done by a small
group that included some IGC people.  But a real bridge between IGC and the
people on the PV list (couple hundred subscribers I believe) was never formed,
and global IG
issues and institutions seem to be off the radar of many of the latter (perhaps
in part reflecting a heavy presence of North American NGOs that skipped WSIS and
IGF etc).

Hence, when Wolfgang rather innocuously suggested that the CS statement might
note that multistakeholderism a la IGF is a good thing governments should
support, a big debate broke out with some undertones that this UN thingy might
not be so great.  It was in this context that Veni unleashed his hypocritical
and incoherent diatribe against CS (which baffled PV readers not steeped in
WSIS/IGF/ICANN screaming matches and troll behavior).  In the end, the best we
could manage in the
statement was a very meek and indirect reference to the IGF, even after the
OECD staffer facilitating the coalition pointed out that the ministerial
declaration already said the OECD should work on a multistakeholder basis to
reinforce cooperative relationships with the Internet technical community, the
private sector and civil society within fora such as the Internet Governance
Forum. In fact, when she noted this, Veni challenged her right to speak---great
PR for ICANN staff to be pissy to OECD staff on an OECD-facilitated list, but
whatever.

More generally, the OECD meeting and declaration address a number of IG issues
but primarily at the national level, rather than in the context of
international or transnational principles, norms, rules, etc.  Hence it would
have been good to have global IG aspects emphasized more at least by the CS
inputs.  We'll do a little GigaNet side event to try to inject some of that.

As Avri notes, there are questions about institutional capacity etc that bear on
the IGC's ability to do more than IGF and fights over ICANN, but it's a pity to
let slip by ripe opportunities for cross-institutional/cross-issue advocacy and
bridge building with other CS coalitions.

Best,

Bill

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Fri May 30 02:45:17 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:45:17 +0800
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>

On 30/05/2008, at 12:28 AM, Ken Lohento wrote:

> My two cents : I have to agree with Avri. To my knowledge the MAG  
> didn't not take any decision to stop the OCDC (I can't remember  
> neither any formal discussion about stopping a working group or DC).  
> It's however true that some MAG members, who were members of this  
> group, announced that they were leaving it (I understood they said  
> it was not working properly).But there was no MAG decision about it.

That's all I meant, not that there was any "order from the top".  But  
this "announcement that they would be leaving" was internal to the  
MAG; it was not explained to the OCDC, and was accompanied by a  
vitriolic and false conspiracy theory from George, and the silent  
removal of a link to http://igf-online.net/ from the official IGF Web  
site (which had only been added about a day earlier).  So you can see  
how two and two adds up.

As for the Secretariat/MAG stepping in (or up) as Adam claims, this is  
in the context of the OCDC having asked Markus (and I quote) "Is any  
assistance needed from members of the OCDC in monitoring the channels  
of communication that have been set up to facilitate remote  
participation?  Have specific protocols yet been settled upon for how  
the remote participants' input is to be delivered to session  
moderators? ... these matters fall squarely within the coalition's  
volunteer mandate and we would like to be involved where possible" -  
and no reply being received as usual.  (Though actually, the chat  
system for which you take credit was developed by an OCDC member.)

Anyway, that's water under the bridge now but it's a symptom of the  
larger problem that suggestions to the Secretariat/MAG about remote  
participation are uniformly ignored, on the basis that "the Web site  
and webcasting are our business; you can do whatever else you like,  
but don't expect us to help you out by providing any information or  
linking to the end product" (that's not a quote, obviously).

Back before the OCDC was even formed, a letter was circulated which  
suggested (in my original draft) rather than the three disconnected  
Web sites we had in Athens, "a new platform ... which allows  
administration and editing functions to be distributed between the  
Secretariat and volunteers from the stakeholder groups, who may be  
delegated responsibility for maintaining particular functions or  
resources ... [so that] the attention of IGF stakeholders will not be  
fragmented across numerous sites, that the site will be able to be  
updated in a timely and efficient manner, and not least of all, that  
such a division of labour will be more consistent with the  
collaborative, multi-stakeholder principles of the IGF."  It came back  
from on high that this was unacceptable to the Secretariat, and the  
OCDC's formation was the resulting compromise.

Lately I've been discussing off-list what might be regarded as the  
"next generation" of the original 2006 proposal; that new technologies  
of the social Web such as the OpenSocial API launched last year by  
Google (with Yahoo, MySpace and others tagging along) could be used to  
draw upon a social graph of all IGF participants provided by the  
Secretariat to facilitate the formation of dynamic coalitions,  
communities of interest, mailing lists, groups for straw polls, and so  
on on a distributed basis, thus extending the IGF from an annual  
meeting into a year-round virtual community.  But since the  
Secretariat's lack of cooperation in such an initiative is inevitable,  
it would require a considerable push from CS in order to fly.

With Ginger's remote participation working group handling the remote  
participation side of things (good luck with that), this social Web  
idea could be a remaining initiative for the OCDC (in parallel with  
igf-online.net and the proposed UNESCO WSIS follow-up site), so if  
anyone is interested in advocating for such a platform, feel free to  
join the dormant OCDC list at http://igf-online.net/wws/info/igf-ocdc  
and we can draw up a proposal for presentation at the next open  
consultation meeting.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 30 03:38:04 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:38:04 +0300
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic
In-Reply-To: <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
	 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
	 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
	 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
	 <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
	 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>
	 <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
	 <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com>

<offlist>

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:31 AM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> Hi> CS coalition that came together for this purpose is hosted electronically by
> EPIC's Public Voice platform,

I looked for this last week when jeannette mentioned Wolfies response
to Veni, ironically, I googled for several days and found no link to
archives or subscription page (ironic that it's called public voices,
but unavailable to the public).

I asked Jeannette for the link, but she just said "I think it's hosted
by EPIC" (as if I would be disruptive or smt ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 30 03:50:50 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:50:50 +0300
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
	 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
	 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>
	 <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
	 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>
	 <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
	 <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch>
	 <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805300050o67973a80tb7e6c4f2b8079fb8@mail.gmail.com>

woops, was obviously supposed to be "offlist"

Apologies for the SPAM

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:38 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> <offlist>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:31 AM, William Drake
> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>> Hi> CS coalition that came together for this purpose is hosted electronically by
>> EPIC's Public Voice platform,
>
> I looked for this last week when jeannette mentioned Wolfies response
> to Veni, ironically, I googled for several days and found no link to
> archives or subscription page (ironic that it's called public voices,
> but unavailable to the public).
>
> I asked Jeannette for the link, but she just said "I think it's hosted
> by EPIC" (as if I would be disruptive or smt ;-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri May 30 04:49:14 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:49:14 +0800
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>
 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>
 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
 <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>
 <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch>
 <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1212137354.483fbf8aa5fd4@heimail.unige.ch>



Quoting McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>:

> <offlist>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:31 AM, William Drake
> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> > Hi> CS coalition that came together for this purpose is hosted
> electronically by
> > EPIC's Public Voice platform,
>
> I looked for this last week when jeannette mentioned Wolfies response
> to Veni, ironically, I googled for several days and found no link to
> archives or subscription page (ironic that it's called public voices,
> but unavailable to the public).
>
> I asked Jeannette for the link, but she just said "I think it's hosted
> by EPIC" (as if I would be disruptive or smt ;-)

Heavens, how could anyone ever think that of you? ;-)

You want disruptive?  I'm in Shanghai and just had something for lunch that was
called, Beijing Bombs Pig's Large Intestine by Fragile Skin of Spring Onion. 
Urp...

BD




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri May 30 05:05:32 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 18:05:32 +0900
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net>	
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net>	
 <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com>	
 <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net>	 <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net>
  <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net>	
 <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net>	
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	
 <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com>	
 <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch>
 <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240812c465663a076c@[192.168.1.2]>

><offlist>


it may be spam but good spam:


>On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:31 AM, William Drake
><william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>>  Hi> CS coalition that came together for this purpose is hosted 
>>electronically by
>  > EPIC's Public Voice platform,
>
>I looked for this last week when jeannette mentioned Wolfies response
>to Veni, ironically, I googled for several days and found no link to
>archives or subscription page (ironic that it's called public voices,
>but unavailable to the public).


Public Voice has been around for more than a decade. You could have 
tried searching the caucus list for information.

Participation's pretty simple, you want to subscribe you ask to be subscribed.

See <http://thepublicvoice.org/events/oecdministerial.html>

To Participate Contact: Katitza Rodriguez - katitza @ datos-personales.org


>I asked Jeannette for the link, but she just said "I think it's hosted
>by EPIC" (as if I would be disruptive or smt ;-)


Jeanette sent email to the caucus last August about the CS/Public 
Voice process.

Thanks,

Adam



>--
>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  Fri May 30 05:29:18 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:59:18 +0530
Subject: organizational orientation Re: [governance] Simple and basic
In-Reply-To: <1212137354.483fbf8aa5fd4@heimail.unige.ch>
References: <7.0.1.0.1.20080525085709.062f26a0@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <1212121894.483f8326e8900@heimail.unige.ch> <f65fb55e0805300038x3aad7d75j96319a4274c5db43@mail.gmail.com> <1212137354.483fbf8aa5fd4@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <07b801c8c237$a4209e10$ec61da30$@net>

> You want disruptive?  I'm in Shanghai and just had something for lunch
> that was called, Beijing Bombs Pig's Large Intestine by Fragile Skin of
Spring
> Onion. Urp...

There's Fuqi Feipian - so-called "couples lung" .. Ox's scalp, tongue,
abdomen, sometimes also lung, served with the typical szechwanese mala sauce
(the one that burns your mouth out and numbs it at the same time)



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From klohento at panos-ao.org  Fri May 30 05:31:36 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:31:36 +0200
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org> <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <483FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org>

Jeremy wrote
> Anyway, that's water under the bridge now but it's a symptom of the 
> larger problem that suggestions to the Secretariat/MAG about remote 
> participation are uniformly ignored, on the basis that "the Web site 
> and webcasting are our business; you can do whatever else you like, 
> but don't expect us to help you out by providing any information or 
> linking to the end product" (that's not a quote, obviously).


Well, I confirm it's not a quote :-). I remember during the first IGF at 
least there were a lot of interaction and some cooperation between you 
and the Secretariat (according to Markus's mails to the MAG) and even 
between you and the MAG; and Kieren and you contributed usefully to 
alternative remote participation facilities.

Anyway, it's sure that remote participation should be improved and also 
provided with a multilingual environment. But, another issue is that 
remote participants hardy contribute (at least through facilities 
provided by the Secretariat). For example very few contributions are 
received through the email addresses that MAG members monitor during IGF 
summits, though some of us promoted as needed the existence of that 
easy-to-use facility. Most of the time you have about 2/3 short 
comments/questions in French and a bit more in English (and I'm not sure 
in other languages more messages/questions are received - I think this 
does not help requesting more/alternative UN supported remote 
participation facilities.

Ken L
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri May 30 06:19:36 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 19:19:36 +0900
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <483FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
 <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
 <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>
 <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>
 <483FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <p06240818c4657e4da94a@[192.168.1.2]>

>Jeremy wrote
>>Anyway, that's water under the bridge now but it's a symptom of the 
>>larger problem that suggestions to the Secretariat/MAG about remote 
>>participation are uniformly ignored, on the basis that "the Web 
>>site and webcasting are our business; you can do whatever else you 
>>like, but don't expect us to help you out by providing any 
>>information or linking to the end product" (that's not a quote, 
>>obviously).
>
>
>Well, I confirm it's not a quote :-). I remember during the first 
>IGF at least there were a lot of interaction and some cooperation 
>between you and the Secretariat (according to Markus's mails to the 
>MAG) and even between you and the MAG; and Kieren and you 
>contributed usefully to alternative remote participation facilities.
>
>Anyway, it's sure that remote participation should be improved and 
>also provided with a multilingual environment. But, another issue is 
>that remote participants hardy contribute (at least through 
>facilities provided by the Secretariat). For example very few 
>contributions are received through the email addresses that MAG 
>members monitor during IGF summits, though some of us promoted as 
>needed the existence of that easy-to-use facility. Most of the time 
>you have about 2/3 short comments/questions in French and a bit more 
>in English (and I'm not sure in other languages more 
>messages/questions are received - I think this does not help 
>requesting more/alternative UN supported remote participation 
>facilities.


email was accepted in French, Spanish, Portuguese and English.  The 
chat was, I think English, Spanish and Portuguese (Avri, you 
remember?)

MAG members monitored the incoming email links, and if something came 
in a note was passed to the moderator using the same process as 
taking questions from the audience in the room. But as Ken mentions, 
very few messages were sent. For example, I have a note saying no 
comments received during the session on critical Internet resources.

Similar email addresses are set up for every IGF consultation, 
usually just English and French, and we receive very few comments. 
But this very basic level of remote participation has to be provided.

Thanks,

Adam


>Ken L
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Fri May 30 07:57:03 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 19:57:03 +0800
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <483FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net> <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org> <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au> <4
 83FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au>

On 30/05/2008, at 5:31 PM, Ken Lohento wrote:

> Anyway, it's sure that remote participation should be improved and  
> also provided with a multilingual environment. But, another issue is  
> that remote participants hardy contribute (at least through  
> facilities provided by the Secretariat). For example very few  
> contributions are received through the email addresses that MAG  
> members monitor during IGF summits, though some of us promoted as  
> needed the existence of that easy-to-use facility. Most of the time  
> you have about 2/3 short comments/questions in French and a bit more  
> in English (and I'm not sure in other languages more messages/ 
> questions are received - I think this does not help requesting more/ 
> alternative UN supported remote participation facilities.


And yet, as I pointed out in Rio, there were 325 messages on Slashdot  
about the IGF in the space of a day.  So it's not that people aren't  
interested in contributing, it's that:

(a) the forms in which their input is taken are too limited (eg. new  
main topics cannot be created in the IGF's Discussion Space, and  
emails usually disappear into a black hole);

(b) they do not feel that their input is valued (eg. I was told, "We  
did not put your submission up initially because we thought the speed  
dialogue issue was already extensively covered in the paper you  
submitted for the second IGF. Moreover, it has been addressed during  
the open consultation in May"); and most importantly of all

(c) there has been no attempt to cultivate a virtual community of IGF  
stakeholders, rather than treating them as isolated hangers-on to the  
meetings in person where the "real action" is.  In my book, I wrote:

> it is a quixotic endeavour to seek to constitute the IGF’s annual
> plenary meetings as the principal mode of engagement amongst its  
> stake-
> holders for every purpose, when there are some purposes for which that
> meeting and the e-democratic processes set up to support it are not,  
> and can
> never be adequately suited on their own. Rather, independent processes
> of Internet democracy are required to supplement (not merely to  
> support)
> the IGF’s face-to-face deliberations in order that the IGF’s mandate  
> may be
> fully and adequately addressed.


(I go on to propose three measures to do just that, but rather than  
spam the list with it, see http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC.)

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Fri May 30 08:20:37 2008
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:20:37 -0400
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
 <023901c8bc17$d3748e40$7a5daac0$@net>
 <DD18CE8B-8E45-4508-9AE1-B55CEB2AAE62@Malcolm.id.au>
 <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]>
 <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
 <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>
 <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <p0620070ec465992482e7@[10.0.1.2]>

Jeremy refers to a vitriolic and false conspiracy theory of mine.  I 
don't want to clutter the list with this stuff, but if anyone would 
like to see this mail thread, write to me.

George


>On 30/05/2008, at 12:28 AM, Ken Lohento wrote:
>
>>My two cents : I have to agree with Avri. To my knowledge the MAG 
>>didn't not take any decision to stop the OCDC (I can't remember 
>>neither any formal discussion about stopping a working group or 
>>DC). It's however true that some MAG members, who were members of 
>>this group, announced that they were leaving it (I understood they 
>>said it was not working properly).But there was no MAG decision 
>>about it.
>
>That's all I meant, not that there was any "order from the top". 
>But this "announcement that they would be leaving" was internal to 
>the MAG; it was not explained to the OCDC, and was accompanied by a 
>vitriolic and false conspiracy theory from George, and the silent 
>removal of a link to http://igf-online.net/ from the official IGF 
>Web site (which had only been added about a day earlier).  So you 
>can see how two and two adds up.
>
>As for the Secretariat/MAG stepping in (or up) as Adam claims, this 
>is in the context of the OCDC having asked Markus (and I quote) "Is 
>any assistance needed from members of the OCDC in monitoring the 
>channels of communication that have been set up to facilitate remote 
>participation?  Have specific protocols yet been settled upon for 
>how the remote participants' input is to be delivered to session 
>moderators? ... these matters fall squarely within the coalition's 
>volunteer mandate and we would like to be involved where possible" - 
>and no reply being received as usual.  (Though actually, the chat 
>system for which you take credit was developed by an OCDC member.)
>
>Anyway, that's water under the bridge now but it's a symptom of the 
>larger problem that suggestions to the Secretariat/MAG about remote 
>participation are uniformly ignored, on the basis that "the Web site 
>and webcasting are our business; you can do whatever else you like, 
>but don't expect us to help you out by providing any information or 
>linking to the end product" (that's not a quote, obviously).
>
>Back before the OCDC was even formed, a letter was circulated which 
>suggested (in my original draft) rather than the three disconnected 
>Web sites we had in Athens, "a new platform ... which allows 
>administration and editing functions to be distributed between the 
>Secretariat and volunteers from the stakeholder groups, who may be 
>delegated responsibility for maintaining particular functions or 
>resources ... [so that] the attention of IGF stakeholders will not 
>be fragmented across numerous sites, that the site will be able to 
>be updated in a timely and efficient manner, and not least of all, 
>that such a division of labour will be more consistent with the 
>collaborative, multi-stakeholder principles of the IGF."  It came 
>back from on high that this was unacceptable to the Secretariat, and 
>the OCDC's formation was the resulting compromise.
>
>Lately I've been discussing off-list what might be regarded as the 
>"next generation" of the original 2006 proposal; that new 
>technologies of the social Web such as the OpenSocial API launched 
>last year by Google (with Yahoo, MySpace and others tagging along) 
>could be used to draw upon a social graph of all IGF participants 
>provided by the Secretariat to facilitate the formation of dynamic 
>coalitions, communities of interest, mailing lists, groups for straw 
>polls, and so on on a distributed basis, thus extending the IGF from 
>an annual meeting into a year-round virtual community.  But since 
>the Secretariat's lack of cooperation in such an initiative is 
>inevitable, it would require a considerable push from CS in order to 
>fly.
>
>With Ginger's remote participation working group handling the remote 
>participation side of things (good luck with that), this social Web 
>idea could be a remaining initiative for the OCDC (in parallel with 
>igf-online.net and the proposed UNESCO WSIS follow-up site), so if 
>anyone is interested in advocating for such a platform, feel free to 
>join the dormant OCDC list at 
>http://igf-online.net/wws/info/igf-ocdc and we can draw up a 
>proposal for presentation at the next open consultation meeting.
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ginger at paque.net  Fri May 30 08:26:38 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 07:56:38 -0430
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <483ff290.0f1d640a.0667.6f65@mx.google.com>

Jeremy has made some excellent points here, which I would like to emphasize:

--As an example, online courses that are just emailed information or videos
and then an exam are not very successful, because the interaction and
feedback are limited. Courses and conferences that "include" participants
with frequent exchanges engage them more completely. There should be some
mechanism to replace the eye contact or even audience background murmur and
comment, some acknowledgement of their presence. Chat between participants
replaces some of this interchange.

--The majority of in-person attendees don't ask a question or give
"meaningful contributions". They are present to listen and learn, not to
make presentations. But sometimes the most valuable interactions take place
in the aisles. Again, chat between participants, comments, questions that
you would make to your companion, but not necessarily to the panel, help
replace this element.

--The IGF RP IG is including the option of Remote Hub conferences, as used
by the AIDS conference, to try to generate more of a feel of inclusion in
the proceedings. (See http://www.aids2008.org/mainpage.aspx?pageId=364).

--The IGF RP WG welcomes any suggestions to work more efficiently or better.
Please email me if you have any ideas.

--The IGF RP WG does not want to be a DC. There is already a DC for that
purpose. Once again, any suggestions on how to generate more and better RP
for the 2008 IGF are very welcome. Please email me!

Thanks. Ginger





-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 30 de Mayo de 2008 07:27 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: Re: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we

On 30/05/2008, at 5:31 PM, Ken Lohento wrote:

> Anyway, it's sure that remote participation should be improved and  
> also provided with a multilingual environment. But, another issue is  
> that remote participants hardy contribute (at least through  
> facilities provided by the Secretariat). For example very few  
> contributions are received through the email addresses that MAG  
> members monitor during IGF summits, though some of us promoted as  
> needed the existence of that easy-to-use facility. Most of the time  
> you have about 2/3 short comments/questions in French and a bit more  
> in English (and I'm not sure in other languages more messages/ 
> questions are received - I think this does not help requesting more/ 
> alternative UN supported remote participation facilities.


And yet, as I pointed out in Rio, there were 325 messages on Slashdot  
about the IGF in the space of a day.  So it's not that people aren't  
interested in contributing, it's that:

(a) the forms in which their input is taken are too limited (eg. new  
main topics cannot be created in the IGF's Discussion Space, and  
emails usually disappear into a black hole);

(b) they do not feel that their input is valued (eg. I was told, "We  
did not put your submission up initially because we thought the speed  
dialogue issue was already extensively covered in the paper you  
submitted for the second IGF. Moreover, it has been addressed during  
the open consultation in May"); and most importantly of all

(c) there has been no attempt to cultivate a virtual community of IGF  
stakeholders, rather than treating them as isolated hangers-on to the  
meetings in person where the "real action" is.  In my book, I wrote:

> it is a quixotic endeavour to seek to constitute the IGF's annual
> plenary meetings as the principal mode of engagement amongst its  
> stake-
> holders for every purpose, when there are some purposes for which that
> meeting and the e-democratic processes set up to support it are not,  
> and can
> never be adequately suited on their own. Rather, independent processes
> of Internet democracy are required to supplement (not merely to  
> support)
> the IGF's face-to-face deliberations in order that the IGF's mandate  
> may be
> fully and adequately addressed.


(I go on to propose three measures to do just that, but rather than  
spam the list with it, see http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC.)

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 30 08:46:47 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:46:47 +0200
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org> <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au> <4 83FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org> <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <483FF737.1090907@panos-ao.org>


> And yet, as I pointed out in Rio, there were 325 messages on Slashdot 
> about the IGF in the space of a day.  So it's not that people aren't 
> interested in contributing, it's that:
>
Certainly it might (also?) be because Slashdot has already (before the 
IGF) a community of people who use to exchange/community. IGF and 
discussions about IGF was/is new. However it would be interesting to 
analyse what those who exchanged on Slashdot discussed.

> (a) the forms in which their input is taken are too limited (eg. new 
> main topics cannot be created in the IGF's Discussion Space, and 
> emails usually disappear into a black hole);

I really think most, if not all, emails that were sent to email 
addresses provided for IGF 1 and 2 were processed and some people did 
have their comments read in public.

> (b) they do not feel that their input is valued (eg. I was told, "We 
> did not put your submission up initially because we thought the speed 
> dialogue issue was already extensively covered in the paper you 
> submitted for the second IGF. Moreover, it has been addressed during 
> the open consultation in May"); 


Yes this might happen unfortunately. Even not all those who attend 
physically sessions and want the floor are given the opportunity to talk 
(maybe because what they want to say was already discussed or for other 
reasons). We can insist that greater consideration is paid to remote 
participants inputs so that they contributions are communicated to the 
public, in order to encourage those contributions.

However, what really appears very clearly for people who monitored the 
email accounts is that facility is not really used. Maybe people don't 
trust that facility as you said, but it's an adequate facility for most 
people and so far people have been very inclined to adequately process 
contributions sent. The reality is that mails (apart from spams) are so 
rare in these accounts that when you see them, you are very happy and 
convey them to the session chair.

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 lists at privaterra.info  Fri May 30 08:57:51 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:57:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Icann makes a very British compromise over net policing
Message-ID: <BEA226E7-F9FF-47BF-990F-5249F1E27D25@privaterra.info>

The following article about IGF was published yesterday in the  
Guardian (UK). Thought it might be of interest to the list...


Icann makes a very British compromise over net policing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/29/internet.politics

The IGF was set up to help the bodies that govern the internet become  
more democratically minded and more globally focused

   [snipped]

Civil libertarians on both sides of the Atlantic criticise the IGF for  
dealing only with trivia, while avoiding the "big difficult issues" of  
the internet: openness, free speech, human rights. They forget that  
the IGF was created specifically to avoid the divisive and intractable  
debates that threatened to wreck the Tunis summit.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 30 09:28:20 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:28:20 +0300
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <483FF737.1090907@panos-ao.org>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>
	 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@221.115.9.42>
	 <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>
	 <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>
	 <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <483FF737.1090907@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805300628m1722acc2w83c5c8a9a8f40e96@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ken,

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> However, what really appears very clearly for people who monitored the email
> accounts is that facility is not really used. Maybe people don't trust that
> facility as you said, but it's an adequate facility for most people and so
> far people have been very inclined to adequately process contributions sent.
> The reality is that mails (apart from spams) are so rare in these accounts
> that when you see them, you are very happy and convey them to the session
> chair.
>

Well, from my experience the IGF webcast/chat functions have been
unusable. Now I recognise that I am not like "most people" in that I
am on the end of a dodgy PtP link that is 7 hops from a VSAT, so
obviously it's a bandwidth issue.   However there are 2 things to
note;

1) much of this part of the world has no better connectivity thna I do

2) I CAN and DO participate remotely in the "existing Internet
administration bodies" events on this same link.  This is not
surprising given the amount of experience (RIPE meetings webcast for
~5 years, others slightly less) AND the type of NOC they can run on
site.

Maybe IGF should look to them for BCPs on remote participation?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri May 30 15:36:37 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:36:37 -0400
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <483FF737.1090907@panos-ao.org>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org> <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au> <4 83FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org> <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au> <483FF7
 37.10909
	07@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8EA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Ken, Ginger, Jeremy:
This is an important discussion. I think by emphasizing the lack of
participation under existing mechanisms, Ken may be missing the main
point that Jeremy and Ginger are making with respect to online
participation in IGF. The primary issue is the development of an ongoing
virtual community, and the opening up of the Secretariat in ways that
sustain, grow, and feed upon that community. 

Remote participation in the physical forum is, at least to me, a
significant but secondary issue, because the meeting is, after all, a
physical meeting, and it is almost impossible for non-physical
participants to have anything but secondary or even marginal status in
those events. 

Of  much greater concern is the cool or uncomprehending reception
afforded Jeremy's call for "a new platform ... which allows
administration and editing functions to be distributed between the
Secretariat and volunteers from the stakeholder groups, who may be
delegated responsibility for maintaining particular functions or
resources..." There is a burgeoning literature on how open,
peer-production processes can sustain organizations, and while the
application of these ideas to IGF would not be simple, it is a challenge
that should be embraced if the Forum wants to realize its promise of
innovative governance.

I don't think it would be controversial or out of place to say that the
IGF website could hardly get any worse than it is now, so I am not sure
what values are threatened by accepting some innovation along those
lines, or what values are preserved by sticking with the status quo. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org] 
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: 
> [governance] Do we
> 
> 
> > And yet, as I pointed out in Rio, there were 325 messages 
> on Slashdot 
> > about the IGF in the space of a day.  So it's not that 
> people aren't 
> > interested in contributing, it's that:
> >
> Certainly it might (also?) be because Slashdot has already 
> (before the 
> IGF) a community of people who use to exchange/community. IGF and 
> discussions about IGF was/is new. However it would be interesting to 
> analyse what those who exchanged on Slashdot discussed.
> 
> > (a) the forms in which their input is taken are too limited 
> (eg. new 
> > main topics cannot be created in the IGF's Discussion Space, and 
> > emails usually disappear into a black hole);
> 
> I really think most, if not all, emails that were sent to email 
> addresses provided for IGF 1 and 2 were processed and some people did 
> have their comments read in public.
> 
> > (b) they do not feel that their input is valued (eg. I was 
> told, "We 
> > did not put your submission up initially because we thought 
> the speed 
> > dialogue issue was already extensively covered in the paper you 
> > submitted for the second IGF. Moreover, it has been 
> addressed during 
> > the open consultation in May"); 
> 
> 
> Yes this might happen unfortunately. Even not all those who attend 
> physically sessions and want the floor are given the 
> opportunity to talk 
> (maybe because what they want to say was already discussed or 
> for other 
> reasons). We can insist that greater consideration is paid to remote 
> participants inputs so that they contributions are 
> communicated to the 
> public, in order to encourage those contributions.
> 
> However, what really appears very clearly for people who 
> monitored the 
> email accounts is that facility is not really used. Maybe 
> people don't 
> trust that facility as you said, but it's an adequate 
> facility for most 
> people and so far people have been very inclined to 
> adequately process 
> contributions sent. The reality is that mails (apart from 
> spams) are so 
> rare in these accounts that when you see them, you are very happy and 
> convey them to the session chair.
> 
> KL
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri May 30 16:54:01 2008
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:54:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: organizational orientation
In-Reply-To: <p06200786c46445f0b7ee@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <006c01c8bf12$1eaa1a40$8b00a8c0@IAN> <7.0.1.0.1.20080526121201.04de9408@lacnic.net> <AE8B2FB8-576C-4ADE-8667-691F1FC74E63@psg.com> <483AE068.2010909@itforchange.net> <019701c8bf4c$5ef47d40$1cdd77c0$@net> <483AE7D4.1050706@itforchange.net> <01b401c8bf4f$59abc4d0$0d034e70$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC897@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <40F8CB22-C06A-46ED-8CD7-8BA8CCF258A5@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8D0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080529010918.GA2349@hserus.net> <p0620077fc463b43949d7@[10.0.1.2]> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018840E8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06200786c46445f0b7ee@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <200805302054.m4UKs1uh009472@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>

Thanks George, for saying many of the same things I would say.

BTW, I can support your claim as to not being an IETF insider. In
fact, I do not believe I had any idea who you were until I started
participating in ICANN stuff (coming up on 3 years).

George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> writes:

> Here's my bottom line.  By and large, Internet organizations with 
> which I'm familiar are open and welcome involvement by others.  But; 
> like any other social group, it helps to know something about the 
> subject first (or just admit that you're a newbie and there to listen 
> and learn), and to enter the group with a cooperative and 
> collaborative attitude  --  an to expect that there maybe some jerks 
> in the group, but they're probably a small minority.

Bingo!

It is not the case that policy is policy and technology is
technology. They intersect all the time. You can't make good policy
(or even have an informed policy discussion) without having at least
some basic understanding in the underlying technology (or at least
listening to others who do understand and tell you that such and such
is technically problematic). Otherwise you start making policy that
requires 1+1 to equal 3.

The RIRs do not do addressing policy in a technology vaccuum. Indeed,
it is critical that address policy discussions are grounded in the
reality that address policy impacts routing, and without routing, the
Internet won't work. Many, many people I've run into on the policy
simply don't (or won't) grasp this and like to pontificate that
Moore's law will fix these sorts of things, or engineers just haven't
tried hard enough to solve the problem, etc. It should be no surprise
that engineers tire of such discussions.

The best engineering definitely takes policy implications into
consideration. Indeed, the best technology supports a broad range of
policies. But at the end of the day, there are many policies we can
imagine that simply can't be implemented with existing technology. Or
at least, not without serious amounts of money at the problem (which
most people don't have), or redesigning the world in which we live in,
etc.

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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Sat May 31 00:27:33 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 12:27:33 +0800
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8EA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <f65fb55e0805221105i424d79e7u8054f15c9dd6a0c0@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB719C@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org> <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au> <4 83FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org> <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au> <483FF7
  37.10909 07@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8EA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <8F4AABA6-3D94-49EA-A3DA-082104205B24@Malcolm.id.au>

On 31/05/2008, at 3:36 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I don't think it would be controversial or out of place to say that  
> the
> IGF website could hardly get any worse than it is now, so I am not  
> sure
> what values are threatened by accepting some innovation along those
> lines, or what values are preserved by sticking with the status quo.

So let's put a requirements document together.  There's a wiki page at http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community 
  we can use for this, open to anyone to edit.  I've started it off in  
rough.  Meanwhile Chengatai from the Secretariat has just emailed me  
about the discussions here and I'm writing back off-list, so that  
seems promising.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From klohento at panos-ao.org  Sat May 31 04:53:57 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:53:57 +0200
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8EA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info> <48367F75.6030302@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71B0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4836C588.4020400@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71C7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20080523135408.0540ca68@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71EF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB71F3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <p06240818c4605641cf1e@[221.115.9.42]> <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au> <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com> <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org> <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au> <4 83FC978.2040703@panos-ao.org> <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au> <483FF7 37.10909	07@panos-ao.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC8EA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <48411225.8030707@panos-ao.org>

Hi Milton

Milton L Mueller a écrit :
> Ken, Ginger, Jeremy:
> This is an important discussion. I think by emphasizing the lack of
> participation under existing mechanisms, Ken may be missing the main
> point that Jeremy and Ginger are making with respect to online
> participation in IGF. The primary issue is the development of an ongoing
> virtual community, and the opening up of the Secretariat in ways that
> sustain, grow, and feed upon that community. 
>
>   

Yes, I understand the existence of a virtual community, active before, 
during and after IGF is of importance to encourage contributions. It's 
also why I was assuming that the lively contributions on Slashdot was 
also due to the sense of community that already exists on that 
platform/between those who discuss there.
The other issue is the management of that community considering the 
suggestion below :

> "a new platform ... which allows
> administration and editing functions to be distributed between the
> Secretariat and volunteers from the stakeholder groups, who may be
> delegated responsibility for maintaining particular functions or
> resources..." 

I can't imagine right now clearly what this management will require from 
the Secretariat side, what political implications for them it will have, 
etc. Maybe they don't want too much trouble it's why they've established 
this discussion space they've put on the IGF website 
http://intgovforum.org/forum/ :-)

Thanks

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 klohento at panos-ao.org  Sat May 31 05:13:58 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:13:58 +0200
Subject: Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805300628m1722acc2w83c5c8a9a8f40e96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFAF270A-19B3-4991-A503-37BC3594028C@privaterra.info>	 <FACFEC7F-8D91-4BE9-B5DA-9915A8D460FA@Malcolm.id.au>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <p06240818c4605641cf1e@221.115.9.42>	 <7CD17EBD-7A77-48F0-8435-AFD1B4126E59@Malcolm.id.au>	 <5F7C3F3A-D8BA-4B35-B9CA-487D94796C02@psg.com>	 <483ED9AF.8000103@panos-ao.org>	 <063A71F6-8F54-4EE8-A54E-B3B1BACED9F7@Malcolm.id.au>	 <76B04ED3-6E3E-4D58-AD43-3610A0E76CF5@Malcolm.id.au>	 <483FF737.1090907@panos-ao.org> <f65fb55e0805300628m1722acc2w83c5c8a9a8f40e96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <484116D6.3060807@panos-ao.org>

Hi McTim

McTim a écrit :
> Well, from my experience the IGF webcast/chat functions have been
> unusable. 

You're right, the systems don't always/most of the time work well. (just 
for info, maybe it was already mentioned : for MAG meetings, we often 
use Marratech http://www.marratech.co.uk/ and it works quite well often 
- but I think it's not adequate for public IGF meetings, notably because 
it requires more technical arrangements from the user side).

> Now I recognise that I am not like "most people"

of course, you're not :-)

> 2) I CAN and DO participate remotely in the "existing Internet
> administration bodies" events on this same link.  This is not
> surprising given the amount of experience (RIPE meetings webcast for
> ~5 years, others slightly less) AND the type of NOC they can run on
> site.
>   

It seems to me a crucial issue is that the UN engaged itself more 
decisively in IGF and provide more resources for it's whole management, 
notably to better remote participation.

Best

KL
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat May 31 05:25:02 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:25:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805291315v1195b230h5a6b025a0b091c13@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>



Sorry, McTim, on not coming in on the debate you want on defining some kind
of criteria about choosing or not choosing persons having a close and
central association with a body involved with administration of the internet
and making policy regarding it. For some reasons I have not had much time in
the last few days, but now my services are entirely available to you. I have
always asked for such issues to be more extensively discussed by this group,
and welcome your eagerness to do this debate. 

(I am speaking here in my personal capacity. However I must also tell that I
was not part of any decision-making process of the recent nomcom, nor privy
to their discussions.)

Before anything else, can we frame the issue in the right terms and
language? There is no exclusion of any body or organization for holding any
kind of views - so you may please stop repeating that. The issue is of
defining who and which groups can or cannot be representing CS because of
structural properties associated with an organization and the situation of
specific individuals vis a vis that organization.

First, about the implicated organizations. These are those organization that
are involved in policy making, especially directly in those areas of policy
making, which an civil society organization, especially an advocacy
organization, that IGC is inter alia described as by the charter, seeks to
influence. There is an obvious possible conflict of interest in making
policy (and representing such policy positions) and seeking to influence it
as an advocacy group, (and seeking accountability in and of policy making
process, which is another important aspect of CS activity). 

Second, about the specific persons that may be implicated. These are those
who are centrally and closely associated with these organizations. Here, at
times, some amount of judgment may need to be made on case to case basis,
but to illustrate the point, for instance, a CEO of such an organization
will be difficult not to be considered to be closely and centrally
associated with it. And there will be other positions which will fall in
this category. Such persons cannot be expected to do anything other than
represent and defend the policy positions of the said organization, and it
would indeed be a breach of their duty and responsibility to do otherwise.
This doesn't allow them to publicly profess any view different from the
policy made by the organization, or what may otherwise be its policy view on
any subject, much less do advocacy around it. Though it is not normally
difficult to decide who such persons and positions in an organization may
be, in case of real doubt one possible way to go may be to seek an
self-declaration that the person doesnt feel bound to stand by and defend
the policies and/or policy views of any organization with which the person
may seem to have some association, and that she/he finds it perfectly fine,
if she/he so feels, to speak and advocate, publicly and actively, against
these polices and/or policy views. 

I will request that we stick to discussing the above criteria for choosing
CS and IGC reps, of course with ones reasons and justifications either way. 

While on the subject, in your statements about enhanced cooperation (I also
apologize that I need to answer some of your questions on this issue, which
I will do sometime soon), if I got you right, you hold that these bodies,
which have been called as Internet administration bodies (we may choose
another name, if you prefer) already make all the Internet related policy
that ever needs to be made. This I understand is your logic why there needs
to be no other process of enhanced cooperation. Am I right! IGC's charter is
also clear that we seek to influence Internet related polices. So if we, to
take an illustrative instance, get CEOs of bodies that do all the Internet
policy that is ever needed as representatives of one of the main CS
organizations doing advocacy etc in the area of Internet policy, I am sure
many will wonder what really is going on.

Also, and I have asked it before, would you then also find it fine to
nominate some government officials (who may hold views close to those
generally held  by CS, whatever that may mean) or, if you will be better
persuaded by another example, the ITU chief, or someone from the director's
office, as CS/ IGC's rep... If not, why so, in light of your apparent
insistence that other internet policy making bodies and persons centrally
associated with them be so treated. I know you may not like ITU all that
much, but that's really beside the point. Otherwise wouldn't you just be
excluding an organization because of the views you think it holds, something
you have been speaking against all the while.

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 suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 31 08:39:35 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:09:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <f65fb55e0805291315v1195b230h5a6b025a0b091c13@mail.gmail.com> <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <097301c8c31b$646c1f80$2d445e80$@net>

> First, about the implicated organizations. These are those organization
> that are involved in policy making, especially directly in those areas of
> policy making, which an civil society organization, especially an advocacy
> organization, that IGC is inter alia described as by the charter, seeks
> to influence.

Unless you're trying to regulate those organizations that doesn't constitute
a conflict of interest at all.  And if you are trying to regulate those
organizations, that's not what the mandate of the IGF is.

> as an advocacy group, (and seeking accountability in and of policy
> making process, which is another important aspect of CS activity).

There's nothing at all preventing CS people - I must say informed CS people
- from participating in the  long running, open and democratic policy making
processes of those organizations.  Trying to get the IGF to supplant all
these is a non starter.

 
> Second, about the specific persons that may be implicated. These are
> those who are centrally and closely associated with these organizations.
Here,

This is sheer doublespeak, for all that it repeats itself over 10 paragraphs
of text that I plowed through in your email.

The position of the nomcom was to specifically exclude all members of those
orgs from this process.  Which is entirely contrary to your assertion that
this is a decision based on specific people and any conflicts of interest
they may have or declare.

> Also, and I have asked it before, would you then also find it fine to
> nominate some government officials (who may hold views close to those
> generally held  by CS, whatever that may mean) or, if you will be

Others asked too, citing the example of Bertrand de la Chapelle.  My
response was - and it is entirely in accordance with the charter - that if a
person has CS cred, he is CS, whoever his current employer may be, and is
not disqualified from standing for the simple reason that his employer is X.
As long as he can satisfy an unbiased nomcom that any conflicts of interest
he may have are resolvable, and as long as he is better than the other
candidates on the ballot, he should then be elected.

The current nomcomm's actions are entirely contrary to the letter and spirit
of the charter. And your example (ITU chief) or someone else's example (IT
secretary of Nigeria.. that was Milton, wasn't it?  Nice card to play there)
are obvious strawmen.

Can you please try to make your roundabout and circular arguments a bit more
concise?  Saves us all time having to read them through before rebutting
them.

	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 vb at bertola.eu  Sat May 31 10:42:14 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 16:42:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu>

Parminder ha scritto:
> Before anything else, can we frame the issue in the right terms and
> language? There is no exclusion of any body or organization for holding any
> kind of views - so you may please stop repeating that. The issue is of
> defining who and which groups can or cannot be representing CS because of
> structural properties associated with an organization and the situation of
> specific individuals vis a vis that organization.

There is one point that I don't understand in this discussion.

If we accept the claim that RIRs etc. are not part of civil society and 
cannot be represented through civil society, then there is the need for 
a separate "stakeholder group" including these organizations so that 
they can be represented through this other mechanism. If, on the other 
hand, we claim that there can be only three stakeholder groups and not a 
fourth one for the "technical community", then the technical community 
must be an equal member of the civil society group of stakeholders.

I don't understand whether this is being taken into account - ie, those 
who think that the IGC Nomcom should consider nominees from the 
technical community, feel that the technical community belongs into the 
civil society group? And do those who oppose that think that there 
should be a separate stakeholder group for the techies?
-- 
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 suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 31 10:55:52 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 20:25:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu>
References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net> <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <09bf01c8c32e$6dc5ca50$49515ef0$@net>

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> If we accept the claim that RIRs etc. are not part of civil society and
> cannot be represented through civil society, then there is the need for
> a separate "stakeholder group" including these organizations so that

RIRs are operated on a not for profit basis, are membership driven
organizations .. in fact they fulfil several criteria that a normal civil
society group would be expected to

The problem is that people who think the technical community doesn't belong
here seem to hold very firmly to the traditional "3 stakeholder groups" idea
as well.

And the other problem is that they just don't realize that spurning
technical expertise, in policy discussions on a technical resource (so that
such governance spans a boundary traditional civ soc groups may not have
adequate experience with at all), they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Some because of intensely political reasons, others because of the "they
don't belong here" mindset.

	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  Sat May 31 11:55:21 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:55:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <09bf01c8c32e$6dc5ca50$49515ef0$@net>
References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net> <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> <09bf01c8c32e$6dc5ca50$49515ef0$@net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7483@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> 
> RIRs are operated on a not for profit basis, are membership driven
> organizations .. 

So is the international trademark association (INTA), and the American
Petroleum Institute. But both are commercial groups and they would be
fully represented by the business stakeholder group. Legal status of the
organization (profit-nonprofit) is less relevant here than the purpose
of the organization. NCUC in ICANN has made this distinction between
commercial purposes and noncommercial (civil society) entities for
years, and no one complains about it. 

RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of
commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP
address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are
better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory organizations, not as
CS, business or govt. Within the framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda,
they fit squarely in the category of "international organizations" along
with ICANN. So of course RIRs and ICANN, like other international
governance organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely
should be represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs.

> The problem is that people who think the technical community doesn't
> belong here seem to hold very firmly to the traditional "3 stakeholder

> groups" idea as well.

There is no inconsistency there, as far as I can see (although that
debate is not one I take a great deal of interest in). As many others
have said, and as Avri pointed out, technical community can be
considered a cross-cutting group that is present in civil society,
business, and government. So it is quite possible for people in e.g.,
IETF, ISOC, or NANOG to be nominated by civil society groups such as IGC
as their representative, if the individuals gain the trust and support
of IGC members. They could also be nominated by business and govt. E.g.,
Stefano Trumpy, who I guess we would classify as part of the technical
community, is Italy's official rep. on the GAC. 

> And the other problem is that they just don't realize that spurning
> technical expertise, in policy discussions on a technical resource (so
> that
> such governance spans a boundary traditional civ soc groups may not
have
> adequate experience with at all), they are shooting themselves in the
> foot.

I have not heard anyone say that we should exclude technical expertise.
The issue is organizational conflict of interest. 

On a related note: I think the case of Bertrand de la Chapelle, which
Suresh keeps bringing up, is a perfect example of the rationality of
Parminder's position and the irrationality of Suresh's position.
Bertrand is indeed a "friend of civil society" in many respects and
participated alongside us in WSIS. But he is currently a direct
delegate/employee of the French government, and so his activities in IGF
are fully constrained by French govt policies and directives, whatever
he thinks personally. So to suggest that we as CS could even consider
nominating him to be our representative is just crazy. I am sure
Bertrand would be the first to recognize the "potential conflict of
interest" and to understand the inappropriateness of such a nomination. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 May 31 12:24:43 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 19:24:43 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7483@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> <09bf01c8c32e$6dc5ca50$49515ef0$@net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7483@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805310924x7356c79br95c302d2e7ab4d26@mail.gmail.com>

Hullo Milton,

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
>>
>> RIRs are operated on a not for profit basis, are membership driven
>> organizations ..
>
> So is the international trademark association (INTA), and the American
> Petroleum Institute. But both are commercial groups and they would be
> fully represented by the business stakeholder group. Legal status of the
> organization (profit-nonprofit) is less relevant here than the purpose
> of the organization. NCUC in ICANN has made this distinction between
> commercial purposes and noncommercial (civil society) entities for
> years, and no one complains about it.
>
> RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of
> commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP
> address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are
> better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory organizations, not as
> CS, business or govt. Within the framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda,
> they fit squarely in the category of "international organizations" along
> with ICANN. So of course RIRs and ICANN, like other international
> governance organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely
> should be represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs.
>

I agree that they should and will be, however, that is NOT the issue,
the issue is that WE have excluded them as a class. I note we have not
excluded Gov or PS or IO's as a class tho.  If we want to do this, I
think we need to amend the charter.  IMO, a NomCom does NOT have the
authority to do this.

>> The problem is that people who think the technical community doesn't
>> belong here seem to hold very firmly to the traditional "3 stakeholder
>
>> groups" idea as well.
>
> There is no inconsistency there, as far as I can see (although that
> debate is not one I take a great deal of interest in). As many others
> have said, and as Avri pointed out, technical community can be
> considered a cross-cutting group that is present in civil society,
> business, and government. So it is quite possible for people in e.g.,
> IETF, ISOC, or NANOG to be nominated by civil society groups such as IGC
> as their representative

I'd like this to be true, but if they are full time employees, the
2008 NomCom said they cannot.  How about non-profit ccTLD registry
staff or NREN folk?  I've already given a short list of the hundreds
of orgs that could be affected by this decision, it's not just
ISOC/IETF/RIRs/ICANN/NOGs.

, if the individuals gain the trust and support
> of IGC members. They could also be nominated by business and govt. E.g.,
> Stefano Trumpy, who I guess we would classify as part of the technical
> community, is Italy's official rep. on the GAC.
>
>> And the other problem is that they just don't realize that spurning
>> technical expertise, in policy discussions on a technical resource (so
>> that
>> such governance spans a boundary traditional civ soc groups may not
> have
>> adequate experience with at all), they are shooting themselves in the
>> foot.
>
> I have not heard anyone say that we should exclude technical expertise.
> The issue is organizational conflict of interest.
>

Again, the issue is our charter, and how we follow it going forward
(or amend it).

> On a related note: I think the case of Bertrand de la Chapelle, which
> Suresh keeps bringing up,

I think that was Guru who brought it up IIRC, SR just answered the
direct query to him and reitierated it in his last post.

 is a perfect example of the rationality of
> Parminder's position and the irrationality of Suresh's position.
> Bertrand is indeed a "friend of civil society" in many respects and
> participated alongside us in WSIS. But he is currently a direct
> delegate/employee of the French government, and so his activities in IGF
> are fully constrained by French govt policies and directives, whatever
> he thinks personally. So to suggest that we as CS could even consider
> nominating him to be our representative is just crazy. I am sure
> Bertrand would be the first to recognize the "potential conflict of
> interest" and to understand the inappropriateness of such a nomination.

If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 31 12:29:34 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 21:59:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805310924x7356c79br95c302d2e7ab4d26@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>	 <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> <09bf01c8c32e$6dc5ca50$49515ef0$@net>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901BB7483@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0805310924x7356c79br95c302d2e7ab4d26@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <09ea01c8c33b$84f5d7d0$8ee18770$@net>

> If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
> basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.

That's my point. Excluding them as a class is just not on. Picking specific
examples like Bertrand, or Stefano, or the Nigerian IT secretary, or whoever
else isn't a very valid reason for such exclusion.

	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  Sat May 31 13:00:23 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 19:00:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <20080531170057.8FF71E24DB@smtp3.electricembers.net>


> There is one point that I don't understand in this discussion.
> 
> If we accept the claim that RIRs etc. are not part of civil society and
> cannot be represented through civil society, then there is the need for
> a separate "stakeholder group" including these organizations so that
> they can be represented through this other mechanism. If, on the other
> hand, we claim that there can be only three stakeholder groups and not a
> fourth one for the "technical community", then the technical community
> must be an equal member of the civil society group of stakeholders.
> 
> I don't understand whether this is being taken into account - ie, those
> who think that the IGC Nomcom should consider nominees from the
> technical community, feel that the technical community belongs into the
> civil society group? And do those who oppose that think that there
> should be a separate stakeholder group for the techies?
> --
> vb.          


I think our position is quite clear in our statement on MAG rotation
developed for Feb 08 consultations of MAG (enclosed)

To quote

"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."

Though the term 'technical community', which is the tern used by you, in the
context of a policy system needs interrogation, but that I will attempt
separately.  

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 4:42 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Cc: 'McTim'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> Parminder ha scritto:
> > Before anything else, can we frame the issue in the right terms and
> > language? There is no exclusion of any body or organization for holding
> any
> > kind of views - so you may please stop repeating that. The issue is of
> > defining who and which groups can or cannot be representing CS because
> of
> > structural properties associated with an organization and the situation
> of
> > specific individuals vis a vis that organization.
> 
> There is one point that I don't understand in this discussion.
> 
> If we accept the claim that RIRs etc. are not part of civil society and
> cannot be represented through civil society, then there is the need for
> a separate "stakeholder group" including these organizations so that
> they can be represented through this other mechanism. If, on the other
> hand, we claim that there can be only three stakeholder groups and not a
> fourth one for the "technical community", then the technical community
> must be an equal member of the civil society group of stakeholders.
> 
> I don't understand whether this is being taken into account - ie, those
> who think that the IGC Nomcom should consider nominees from the
> technical community, feel that the technical community belongs into the
> civil society group? And do those who oppose that think that there
> should be a separate stakeholder group for the techies?
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC - MAG Rotation.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 27546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080531/3fe7edbd/attachment.pdf>

From avri at psg.com  Sat May 31 13:06:55 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:06:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080531092509.2BBE2E2520@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <1E84ED7A-D2A9-48FE-93E1-D22FCBEF5C22@psg.com>


On 31 May 2008, at 05:25, Parminder wrote:

> Second, about the specific persons that may be implicated. These are  
> those
> who are centrally and closely associated with these organizations.  
> Here, at
> times, some amount of judgment may need to be made on case to case  
> basis,
> but to illustrate the point, for instance, a CEO of such an  
> organization
> will be difficult not to be considered to be closely and centrally
> associated with it.

personally, the day that someone as influential as the CEO of ICANN,  
or of any of the other formidable international  organizations  
associated with the practice of IG, declares his or her solidarity  
with Civil Society and claims to be at one with CS and declares  
sincere willingness to be one of us and to even represent our diverse  
interests, my tendency will be to rejoice and not to exclude.

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 31 13:09:47 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:09:47 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080531170057.8FF71E24DB@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <484163C6.7080102@bertola.eu> <20080531170057.8FF71E24DB@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080531170947.GA4248@hserus.net>

Parminder [31/05/08 19:00 +0200]:
>I think our position is quite clear in our statement on MAG rotation
>developed for Feb 08 consultations of MAG (enclosed)

That much bandied about quote is not as clear as it should be. And it is
still inconsistent with the actions of the nomcom this time.

I thought that was the entire point of this discussion.

	srs

>"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."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-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 May 31 13:24:24 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 19:24:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <09ea01c8c33b$84f5d7d0$8ee18770$@net>
Message-ID: <20080531172437.794A667989@smtp1.electricembers.net>


> 
> > If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
> > basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.
> 
> That's my point. Excluding them as a class is just not on. Picking
> specific
> examples like Bertrand, or Stefano, or the Nigerian IT secretary, or
> whoever
> else isn't a very valid reason for such exclusion.
> 
> 	srs

Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG, and
for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider any
such person as CS. 


Parminder 


> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat May 31 13:31:28 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 20:31:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <484189d6.29578c0a.2b8f.ffffce2eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <09ea01c8c33b$84f5d7d0$8ee18770$@net>
	 <484189d6.29578c0a.2b8f.ffffce2eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0805311031i7130c872j7c736b00a3379c87@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
>> > basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.
>>
>> That's my point. Excluding them as a class is just not on. Picking
>> specific
>> examples like Bertrand, or Stefano, or the Nigerian IT secretary, or
>> whoever
>> else isn't a very valid reason for such exclusion.
>>
>>       srs
>
> Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
> have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
> dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG, and
> for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider any
> such person as CS.

IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal. The Charter says:

"Membership

The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity,
who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and
have the same rights and duties."

The NomCom said;

"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations
Another matter that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are
full time employees of existing Internet governance organizations –
irrespective of their civil society credentials. Some members believe
that the issue is really of primary identity of the person – if a
person is a fulltime employee of IG organization then though they may
have progressive views, they can not be said to be having CS
credentials."

This is a gross disregard of the above text in the charter AND is
clearly a "political" statement.  Your political view that policy
making bodies can't be CS seems to have seeped into the NomCom
somehow.

I don't see the caucus as "political" at all.  It SHOULD NOT be IMO.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From suresh at hserus.net  Sat May 31 13:34:12 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:34:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
Message-ID: <20080531173412.GA5525@hserus.net>

Parminder [31/05/08 19:24 +0200]:
>Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
>have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
>dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG, and
>for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider any
>such person as CS. 

You are not quoting me entirely there.

1. He/She needs to have CS cred
2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of interest

After that, I dont particularly care whether he is a bureaucrat, a NGO
employee, an independent tech, an RIR employee ...

Similarly, just to make sure, I take it that those who profess your line
are quite comfortable with driving this caucus down to abysmal levels of
mediocrity, and subverting its charter the way it has been this year.

	srs
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat May 31 13:47:59 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:47:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080531172437.794A667989@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080531172437.794A667989@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <48418F4F.7070401@wzb.eu>

Having followed this discussion now for I don't know how long, my 
personal conclusion is that exclusions based on formal stakeholder 
categories is neither fair nor very effective. We might exclude people 
we would be happy to nominate or we might nominate people as CS although 
they are only partly CS because they are also something else (run a 
company, work for a government, an ISP, or whatever). It seems thus not 
easy to apply such a general rule in a consistent and fair way.

If we abolish this rule, however, we increase the burden of the nomcom 
as it will be up to the nomcom to decide whether or not somebody 
actually embodies CS spirit, despite any affiliations. This is not easy 
to do. Judging from past nomination results, civil society reps on the 
MAG form a rather diverse group - much more diverse than the reps from 
the Internet industry including ICANN and the technical community, and 
in my view too diverse to have much of an impact as a stakeholder group.

Nonetheless, I would prefer to delegate nomination related decisions to 
a nomcom and dispose of any formal exclusions. If this requires a change 
of our charter I support such a change.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
>>> If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
>>> basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.
>> That's my point. Excluding them as a class is just not on. Picking
>> specific
>> examples like Bertrand, or Stefano, or the Nigerian IT secretary, or
>> whoever
>> else isn't a very valid reason for such exclusion.
>>
>> 	srs
> 
> Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
> have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
> dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG, and
> for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider any
> such person as CS. 
> 
> 
> 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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat May 31 16:32:24 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 22:32:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <20080531173412.GA5525@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20080531203235.0575967873@smtp1.electricembers.net>


> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred

This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the'
central criterion, which will require a clear explanation what the proposer
of this criterion really means by it.

> 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of interest

The part of nomcom statement 


"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations - Another matter
that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time employees of
existing Internet governance organizations - irrespective of their civil
society credentials. Some members believe that the issue is really of
primary identity of the person - if a person is a fulltime employee of IG
organization then though they may have progressive views, they can not be
said to be having CS credentials. Again there was no consensus on this issue
within the NomCom - but there were seen to be potential conflicts of
interest involved for employees and this was combined with the precedent
already established within CS Caucus to not accept nominations from full
time employees of existing Internet governance organizations in arriving at
our decision."

suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself, and decided, that certain
structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 7:34 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio
> Bertola'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> Parminder [31/05/08 19:24 +0200]:
> >Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
> >have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
> >dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG, and
> >for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider
> any
> >such person as CS.
> 
> You are not quoting me entirely there.
> 
> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred
> 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of interest
> 
> After that, I dont particularly care whether he is a bureaucrat, a NGO
> employee, an independent tech, an RIR employee ...
> 
> Similarly, just to make sure, I take it that those who profess your line
> are quite comfortable with driving this caucus down to abysmal levels of
> mediocrity, and subverting its charter the way it has been this year.
> 
> 	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  Sat May 31 16:35:16 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 22:35:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0805311031i7130c872j7c736b00a3379c87@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080531203527.C7A9067939@smtp1.electricembers.net>



> > Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
> > have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
> > dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG,
> and
> > for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider
> any
> > such person as CS.
> 
> IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal.

Thanks for supporting the relevance of signing the IGC charter. However, we
do nominate CS persons who are not IGC members, so this cannot be a
condition. 

I am not sure what aspect of the charter you have repeated referred to as
violated in nomcom's decision...

I must also draw your attention to the fact that the preambular para of the
charter

"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual
and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public
interest objectives in Internet governance policy making."

does have important significance in deriving the meaning of CS as used by
us, if it is not otherwise clear (to a sufficient level of 'working
clarity'). There was some context in which the CS term has been used in the
WSIS, and the way the CS engaged with WSIS used it. (It is also significant
to note that ICANN, RIRs etc were registered as private sector and not CS in
the WSIS process.  Apparently, they didnt think they were CS, so why be more
loyal than the king).

So when the charter keeps mentioning the term 'civil society' everywhere, it
is operating within some understanding of the term within which the
membership para you quote is situated. 

All the paras before the membership paras clearly keep stating that it is a
civil society group, which will mean with civil society persons'
membership....

And the objective 8 refers to 'collaboration with other stakeholders' which
clearly means (if there could at all be any doubt otherwise, which I don't
think there is the least scope for)  that there are other stakeholders who
are not CS (this is getting too much really even to try and argue, I really
think the distinction is quite clear, and I just cant understand what is
being meant really by saying there may be no distinction between CS,
private/ business sector and government sector).....

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 7:31 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; Milton L Mueller;
> Vittorio Bertola
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
> >> > basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.
> >>
> >> That's my point. Excluding them as a class is just not on. Picking
> >> specific
> >> examples like Bertrand, or Stefano, or the Nigerian IT secretary, or
> >> whoever
> >> else isn't a very valid reason for such exclusion.
> >>
> >>       srs
> >
> > Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
> > have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
> > dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG,
> and
> > for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider
> any
> > such person as CS.
> 
> IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal. The Charter says:
> 
> "Membership
> 
> The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity,
> who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and
> have the same rights and duties."
> 
> The NomCom said;
> 
> "Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations
> Another matter that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are
> full time employees of existing Internet governance organizations -
> irrespective of their civil society credentials. Some members believe
> that the issue is really of primary identity of the person - if a
> person is a fulltime employee of IG organization then though they may
> have progressive views, they can not be said to be having CS
> credentials."
> 
> This is a gross disregard of the above text in the charter AND is
> clearly a "political" statement.  Your political view that policy
> making bodies can't be CS seems to have seeped into the NomCom
> somehow.
> 
> I don't see the caucus as "political" at all.  It SHOULD NOT be IMO.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance