From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 29 20:48:07 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:48:07 -0700 Subject: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call References: <20080929045340.M15547@Malcolm.id.au> <48DF2AC8.EBC6D1C4@ix.netcom.com> <48E017B1.DA0C0730@ix.netcom.com> <008501c922e9$d6af8040$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <48E17746.146C3D52@ix.netcom.com> Ginger and all, No threat at all. Simply a fact that implying as Jeremy's post at the bottom, stated and directly infered was that my response was spam. Spam/UCE under the Spam act, is a crime, as you or anyone should know. Implying that my post was such, is of course clearly false, and as such a form of defamination by legal definition. As such, I kindly ask Jeremy to discontinue making such threats and false claims. Is this clear enough for you Ginger? Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeffrey, > I do not understand the motive for what seems (to my untrained, non-legal > eye) to be an implied threat here. Jeremy's email response seems both > informative and helpful. > > Many times after reading your posts, I do an Internet search on the > INEGroup, to try to put your opinion in perspective as spokesperson for the > INE Group. However, I have never been able to find anything except > references to your signature as spokesperson and questions similar to mine. > Could you please provide a link to the group? > > Thank you. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Enviado el: Domingo, 28 de Septiembre de 2008 07:18 p.m. > Para: Jeremy Malcolm; Governance/IGC > Asunto: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call > > Jeremy and all, > > I did as you ask, but I must complain that you insist on such being done. > > Please do not send me another of these sorts of responses again, > lest more specific and necessary legal action be considered accordingly. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >Jeremy and all, > > > > > Is this platform a Google based platform? > > > > >Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:47:00 +1000, Ian Peter wrote > > >> > Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host the > > >> > site, and to maintain it - or to host it with a simple content > > >> > management system where co-ordinators without html skills can do the > > >> > maintenance? > > >> > > > >> > It would have to be someone with strong associations with the caucus > > >> > and with civil society. I'd be very happy to help with a simple > > >> > redesign to make it more readable and improve the presentation. > > >> > > >> I know Derrick has already offered but alternatively igf-online.net is > a dedicated server that I put > > >> together for the now-dormant Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition and > is specifically designed to > > >> host stuff like this. It already hosts a blog, wiki, shared calendar, > RSS aggregator and mailing lists. > > >> There is also a Drupal CMS installed but not used. The IGC would be > welcome to use that. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 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 > > > > >Regards, > > > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > >=============================================================== > > >Updated 1/26/04 > > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > This is an automatic response. Your email has been identified as > > possible spam, and my email filter has deleted it before I have had the > > opportunity to read it. This is necessary because my quotient of spam > > to real mail is currently running at over 43%. If your email is not spam, > > please resend it with the password "tardis" somewhere in the subject > > line, so that my spam filter will be bypassed and you can be added to my > > whitelist automatically. Thank you. > > > > -- > > 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}' > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 30 20:58:36 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:58:36 -0700 Subject: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance- call References: <20080929045340.M15547@Malcolm.id.au> <48DF2AC8.EBC6D1C4@ix.netcom.com> <48E017B1.DA0C0730@ix.netcom.com> <008501c922e9$d6af8040$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> <48E17746.146C3D52@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48E2CB3B.84BF2BC0@ix.netcom.com> Roeland and all, Roland, your right. The problem I have is that 1.) This is a public mailing list, and 2.) Jeremy made a false assumption, or at least a guarded assumption in my name. That is defamation by definition. And yes I take great offense to it, but FAR more important is that this very sort of attitude is becoming pervasive and impacts accordingly anyone indiscrimenently and harmfully, based on a false assumption. Bad personal or professional policy, bad practice, and I categorically reject it fully! This again articulated differently, if we are to conduct a productive discussion and debate on relevant issues, false claims, false positives, or outright unknown assigned assumptions must cease and be rejected without further consideration and attributed as they were made. Yet I will accept a public apology from Jeremy if he cares to give it... Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48E17746.146C3D52 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:48:07 on Mon, 29 Sep > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > >Simply a fact that implying as Jeremy's post at the bottom, stated and > >directly infered was that my response was spam. > > I have a feeling there are at least two misunderstandings here. > > 1) The message only said it was "possible spam". I'm sure you are aware > of the concept of false positives (in this case possibly triggered > because you unnecessarily cc'd Jeremy's personal email address as well > as mailing to the list; excessive cross-posting is often used as an > indicator in spam filters). Jeremy's system would have seen two copies > of the email, one via the list (which was probably whitelisted) and > another directly from you (and you were clearly not in his whitelist). > > 2) I expect that *only* yourself saw that message from his spam filter, > as a result of the direct-addressed copy of your 'Google' question being > "returned to sender" (see above). Those words, which were only > circulated to us here because you chose to redistribute them, were not > apparently sent to the list. > > As a general rule including more than one list, or a list plus > individuals already on the list, in the addressees of an email will > often end in tears. And now back to our regular programmes... > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 30 21:01:15 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:01:15 -0700 Subject: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance- call References: , <48E017B1.DA0C0730@ix.netcom.com> <48E37E3C.24496.E3936A2@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <48E2CBDA.E52B694@ix.netcom.com> Anriette and all, ROFLMAO! I can appreciate the sarcasm, but that's about as far as it goes... Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Sigh. When I saw the subject I finally thought that perhaps Karen Banks and I > are not the only Dr. Who fans in the caucus. > > Anriette > > Date sent: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:48:01 -0700 > From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" > Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup > To: Jeremy Malcolm , > Governance/IGC > Subject: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - > call > Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Jeffrey A. Williams" > > > > Jeremy and all, > > > > I did as you ask, but I must complain that you insist on such being > > done. > > > > Please do not send me another of these sorts of responses again, > > lest more specific and necessary legal action be considered > > accordingly. > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > > > >Jeremy and all, > > > > > > > Is this platform a Google based platform? > > > > > > >Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:47:00 +1000, Ian Peter wrote > > > >> > Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host > > > >> > the site, and to maintain it - or to host it with a simple > > > >> > content management system where co-ordinators without html > > > >> > skills can do the maintenance? > > > >> > > > > >> > It would have to be someone with strong associations with the > > > >> > caucus and with civil society. I'd be very happy to help with a > > > >> > simple redesign to make it more readable and improve the > > > >> > presentation. > > > >> > > > >> I know Derrick has already offered but alternatively > > > >> igf-online.net is a dedicated server that I put together for the > > > >> now-dormant Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition and is > > > >> specifically designed to host stuff like this. It already hosts > > > >> a blog, wiki, shared calendar, RSS aggregator and mailing lists. > > > >> There is also a Drupal CMS installed but not used. The IGC would > > > >> be welcome to use that. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> 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 > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders > > > >strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > > >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: > > > >i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing > > > >(159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > > >=============================================================== > > > >Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network > > > >data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > > >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > > >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > This is an automatic response. Your email has been identified as > > > possible spam, and my email filter has deleted it before I have had > > > the opportunity to read it. This is necessary because my quotient > > > of spam to real mail is currently running at over 43%. If your > > > email is not spam, please resend it with the password "tardis" > > > somewhere in the subject line, so that my spam filter will be > > > bypassed and you can be added to my whitelist automatically. Thank > > > you. > > > > > > -- > > > 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}' > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., > > whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d > > 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > > security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member > > in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My > > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 1 00:28:16 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080901042826.7131AE2F7E@smtp3.electricembers.net> All I agree with Ian's shortened version. > A suggestion that is philosophic not stylistic is whether to > capitalize 'internet'. I think we should not. The internet > technology seems to me no longer a brand but rather absorbed into > ordinary civil life and doesn't need the differentiation. (Sylvia) Either way is fine. What you say is logical. But I also think that Internet still represents a strong paradigm with significant if complicated meaning of its own. In any case, since this is an input to the synthesis/ conference Paper for IGF Hyderabad, our inputs will be absorbed into the main paper, and a common style decided by the IGF secretariat will be used. > I too prefer shorter interventions. (Sylvia) As said, I agree with Ian's shortening. However we must remember that this is not a spoken input, or even a stand alone written one. It is designed as an input document into the IGF conference paper, and IGF editors will take their own decision on what to put in from our document and where. It is good to reason out one's arguments in some detail in this context, and give sufficient text for possible use in the final document. The major limitation to this however is the extent and length of a text that can be agreed to by this list. We will work within that constraint. 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Sep 1 01:29:32 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 08:29:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20080901052932.GA2218@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:58:39AM -0700, Sylvia Caras (sylvia.caras at gmail.com) wrote: > A suggestion that is philosophic not stylistic is whether to > capitalize 'internet'. I think we should not. The internet > technology seems to me no longer a brand but rather absorbed into > ordinary civil life and doesn't need the differentiation. I agree it's a philosophical rather than stylistic issue, but disagree with your conclusion. I tend to see "internet " and "Internet " as two different things: the former a technology, the latter a place. And place names are proper nouns and should capitalized, however common (like, say, Moon). So, "internet protocol" but "in the Internet", &c. In the present context I suggest Internet is better seen as a place, a unique such, and thus should be capitalized. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 1 03:10:37 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 00:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] European Court of Human Rights Will Not Prevent McKinnon's Extradition Message-ID: <174785.27111.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> So Jeffrey, You're happy that this bloke, for all intents and purposes an idiot doing what he did, can go to jail for many years? It's a sham that this bloke should have to face the unjust United States legal system. Once again, the US should be ashamed. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeffrey A. Williams To: Governance/IGC Sent: Sunday, 31 August, 2008 6:33:50 PM Subject: [governance] European Court of Human Rights Will Not Prevent McKinnon's Extradition All, Now this demonstrates how well International human rights courts should work all the time... See: (August 28, 2008) The European Court of Human Rights has refused Gary McKinnon's appeal against extradition to the United States to face charges related to infiltrating US government computer networks. McKinnon claimed that the penalties he would face if he were tried in the US would constitute inhumane treatment. There is no higher court to which his attorneys can take his case, but they plan to take a new tack and appeal to the UK Home Secretary on the grounds that McKinnon suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9113702&source=rss_topic17 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7585861.stm Editors notes and comments: McKinnon should receive some kind of "drama queen" award. When all is said and done, he almost certainly will end up being extradicted to the US, where he is bound to serve prison time. Meanwhile, it is entertaining to learn of yet another futile attempt on his part to escape justice. and... Per Wikipedia in case I am not the only one that did not know: Asperger syndrome is named after Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger who, in 1944, described children in his practice who lacked nonverbal communication skills, failed to demonstrate empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy. Fifty years later, AS was standardized as a diagnosis.] Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Win a MacBook Air or iPod touch with Yahoo!7. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 03:14:11 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 01:14:11 -0600 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080901052932.GA2218@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080901052932.GA2218@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Dear Tapani, Agree with your position. The next question may be, who has a right to *exist* at that place, at the Internet...?. One answer is that humans have that right. This *Internet existence right,* is protected in the Costa Rican *virtual personality* fundamental right (Internet Bill of Rights). Best regards, Jaco On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen < tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:58:39AM -0700, Sylvia Caras ( > sylvia.caras at gmail.com) wrote: > > > A suggestion that is philosophic not stylistic is whether to > > capitalize 'internet'. I think we should not. The internet > > technology seems to me no longer a brand but rather absorbed into > > ordinary civil life and doesn't need the differentiation. > > I agree it's a philosophical rather than stylistic issue, > but disagree with your conclusion. > > I tend to see "internet " and "Internet " as two different things: > the former a technology, the latter a place. And place names > are proper nouns and should capitalized, however common > (like, say, Moon). > So, "internet protocol" but "in the Internet", &c. > > In the present context I suggest Internet is better seen as a place, > a unique such, and thus should be capitalized. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Mon Sep 1 07:25:44 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:25:44 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not In-Reply-To: <3530.24.156.158.46.1220216806.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D9B7@ensms02.iris.se> <20080831192953.GB1410@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3530.24.156.158.46.1220216806.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285DD21@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Catherine, Thanks for taking your time and send this on the list, it is helpful! But then it comes to copyright exceptions, even if stated in a declaration, it is not binding on States! Only Conventions that are ratified by each State, it can be binding for that State! There are several countries that have (despite CRPD) adopted copyright exceptions for blind and visually impaired persons, like Sweden, but those countries are not in majority and only 34 have ratified CRPD. The good thing however, is that none of those 34 have made a reservation on article 30 paragraph 3, on intellectual properties exceptions! Kind regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: zara [mailto:ecrire at catherine-roy.net] Skickat: den 31 augusti 2008 23:07 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not For detailed information and analysis on the issue of copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities, I would suggest reading (or, at 233 pages, trying to anyway) WIPO's "Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired" : As the executive summary indicates, "The framework in international treaties and conventions relating to intellectual property seems to permit exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people. Indeed, exceptions seem possible with respect to a wide range of acts restricted by copyright that might be undertaken by those making and supplying accessible copies to visually impaired people. However, the possibility of such provision is not specifically addressed and is not mandatory under these treaties and conventions, although it is widely accepted that copyright laws should provide a balance between the interests of different stakeholders. Also, especially where several different treaties and conventions need to be considered, the conditions that might apply to exceptions is quite complicated and there may be some doubt regarding exceptions to the adaptation right in particular. In examining exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people in national laws, 57 countries have been found that have specific provisions that would permit activity to assist visually impaired people unable to access the written word, or to assist people with a print disability more generally, by making a copyright work available to them in an accessible form. Some of the exceptions found in these countries would also permit other types of assistance for handicapped people, and two further countries have been found that have exceptions that would permit, amongst other things, audio description of broadcasts. It has not been possible in this Study to consider to what extent exceptions of other types would permit activity for the benefit of visually impaired people, such as exceptions permitting private copying, use of copyright works for educational purposes and those applying to activity in or by libraries,. But it seems unlikely that such exceptions would provide a comprehensive solution to the legitimate needs of visually impaired people unable because of copyright constraints to access the written word." And from what I understand, WIPO is considering addressing the issue further in its next agenda. Of course, many rights holders would prefer that international treaties and national legislation not contain copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities as the problem of access for this population would, according to them, reside in the cost for re-formatting and that reduction in cost can only be achieved through cooperation with rights holders. Additionally, there are of course concerns about abuse and piracy. Finally, with the development of electronic formats and access tools for persons with disabilities, many feel that copyright exceptions would become moot as technology evolves. Personally, considering how far behind ICT accessibility is, I will not hold my breathe on that. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Sun, August 31, 2008 3:29 pm, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Kicki Nordström > (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > >> I do not know of any exceptions in international laws concerning >> persons with disabilities! I doubt that ISO have made any exceptions >> and ISO standards are not laws either. National laws may have >> exceptions but not any international exceptions. > > I guess it depends on how you define "international", but at least > European Union laws have such exceptions, notably in EU Copyright > Directive. > >> The only mentioning of concerns is the new UN Convention on the >> rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). In article 30 is >> intellectual properties mentioned which should not constitute >> limitation for PWD. But CRPD apply only to countries that have >> ratified the convention. > > There's probably nothing that applies to all countries, I'm afraid. :-( > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 1 11:29:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:59:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080901152940.5E865E2FA1@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All The following is the present shape of the proposed submission on 'rights and the Internet as overarching theme for the IGF-4' on the Goggle doc . If members want this to go we need greater engagement than has been made till now. As mentioned 12th September is the last date for submission, and therefore we need to close discussion on this by 9th September. Members can ask for access to Google doc platform, or give comments here which will be incorporated. If this platform is inconvenient, I can try to set up a wiki. Any help in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Parminder IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4, at Cairo Global internet policy making and rights - role of the IGF and its constituent civil society The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a civil society organization that seeks to "promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making", towards "the realization of internationally agreed upon principles in support of human rights, social equity, cultural diversity and social and economic development". The mission of the IGC "is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for the presentation of civil society contributions into Internet governance processes". (*** citation/footnote needed for quote.) The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the need for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF all assistance in helping to shape such a people-centered rights-based discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help operationalise the proposal to make 'Rights and the Internet' the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet Freedom of expression and openness of the internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important internet right. Conceptions of rights and the internet also extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a right to the internet is being articulated by some, and to collective rights such as those of cultural expression, which can underpin the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to know, access to information 2 and the right to share information, including perhaps freedom of expression itself. The right to public information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where digitized information is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. One particular project looks at positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Many other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation have important new implications in the internet age, including in terms of the kind of internet policies that best serve public interest in these areas.. It is a widely held fear that while the internet gives unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this context, it might be useful to explore what the right to development means in this new, much more globalized and digitized, context. Consumers of digital products face new challenges and the consumer's right 3 to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for is another emerging area of importance. This has great relevance in a context where corporations are able to extend their digital tentacles of control into people's houses and their personal devices, in a manner as yet unsuspected by ordinary consumers. The 'right to property' has conventionally been considered of considerable importance. However its applicability and (remarkably quick and far-reaching) mutations in the the digital environment particularly in the form of Intellectual Property rights is current being widely contested. In fact, this issue is emerging as a primary area of political economy contestation in the emerging information society. Are IP rights 'real rights'? Are corporate entities entitled to rights as we understand the term? What are the public interest principles which must underpin any conception of IPR? In the new context, what is the significance of further developing the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space? Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles of neutrality and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming much more that just a technical platform or a marketplace, and increasingly central to many or even most social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG needs to be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be highly appropriate to explore for this purpose. It is the also the Caucus' view that the IGF is the framework best placed to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF, Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 1 To quote some existing initiatives here 2 Mentioned in TA 3 Mentioned in TA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 1 11:55:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:25:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080901152940.5E865E2FA1@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080901155540.84C0DA6C88@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All The initial proposal was to give IGC's submission to the IGF Hyderabad synthesis paper on two subjects. One on 'rights and the Internet' has already been proposed. A draft for a second input on the crucial issue of 'review of the IGF' is proposed for member's consideration as below. Thanks. Parminder IGC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the TA, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, not due to the fact that they are not impacted by IG and therefore may not have legitimate interest in it, but because of various structural issues. In this context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies in developing counties. Since the IGF has had 'development' as a central theme, it is important to make special efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development activity, including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. It is not therefore enough to announce open consultations, but tangible efforts to reach out to different stakeholders and constituencies should be made. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not advisable to rely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. In selecting 'experts' possible biases should be anticipated and accounted for. Due to the primarily (global) public policy mandate and role of the IGF, the selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. IGC offers its assistance in organizing this main session on the basis of its work in this area, including that which it will undertake for its proposed workshop in Hyderabad. IGC also offers all help in reaching out to civil society actors and constituencies for a comprehensive process of review of the IGF, and will like to be formally associated with the review process in this regard. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure To the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF is a very important global institution in the global IG space, as well a bold new experiment in global policy landscape, and therefore it should continue indefinitely beyond its first mandated period of five years. The Caucus also completely agrees with the mandate given to the IGF by TA, and the context of its establishing. We understand that the mandate is ambitious and complex, whereby a process of evolution towards its complete fulfillment may be needed. However, it is important to keep an eye on the full mandate as we go forward, and continuously make progress in achieving in its letter and intent. It is important that as a deliberative forum IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space. Very likely, more controversial is an issue, more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where it can be handled by use of reason, mutual understating and accommodation. Outcomes from deliberations at the IGF can, thereupon, be used for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape[1]. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. However, this should be done in a manner that expands the multi-stakeholder nature of global internet policy institutional framework rather than narrows it. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. As Internet policy issues become more complex and demanding the role of the IGF is expected to considerably grow, within its existing mandate, from the largely cautious 'stakeholders perspectives/ differences matching' and 'bringing the parties to the table' roles that it performs at present. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is already becoming evident. It is important in this regard for the IGF to have a more substantive inter-sessional work program rather than just of planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in substantive themes based Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. This useful start should be taken forward for more structured AND substantive inter-sessional work. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. _____ [1] To mention some of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Review of the IGF.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40448 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 11:57:51 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:57:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080901152940.5E865E2FA1@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080901152940.5E865E2FA1@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: hi On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > The following is the present shape of the proposed submission on 'rights and > the Internet as overarching theme for the IGF-4' on the Goggle doc . If > members want this to go we need greater engagement than has been made till > now. As mentioned 12th September is the last date for submission, and > therefore we need to close discussion on this by 9th September. > > > > Members can ask for access to Google doc platform, I will do an edit if I am given access, as I think it still too long. Why do we have to ask for access, when we should all have it by default? -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 12:33:47 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:33:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <025401c90c50$874cbcc0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Hi McTim, I'll give you access and the right to give access to others and then you can set it up so "all havit by default" (I wasn't quite sure how to do that with Google Docs and the explanation that someone else has just given me didn't seem to help very much so good luck with it. MG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: September 1, 2008 8:58 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper hi On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > The following is the present shape of the proposed submission on > 'rights and the Internet as overarching theme for the IGF-4' on the > Goggle doc . If members want this to go we need greater engagement > than has been made till now. As mentioned 12th September is the last > date for submission, and therefore we need to close discussion on this > by 9th September. > > > > Members can ask for access to Google doc platform, I will do an edit if I am given access, as I think it still too long. Why do we have to ask for access, when we should all have it by default? -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 13:20:56 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:20:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <025401c90c50$874cbcc0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <025401c90c50$874cbcc0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: All now have access, and I have made my edits On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hi McTim, > > I'll give you access and the right to give access to others and then you can > set it up so "all havit by default" (I wasn't quite sure how to do that with > Google Docs and the explanation that someone else has just given me didn't > seem to help very much so good luck with it. Here's how to invite mailings lists: 1. Click the Share tab in the spreadsheet or presentation you'd like to share. For documents, click on the Share drop-down menu and choose Share with others. 2. Enter the mailing list address in the Collaborate window, and select either as viewers or as collaborators above the window. 3. Make sure that the box next to Invitations may be used by anyone is checked. If it is unchecked, your invitation won't allow every member of your mailing list access. 4. Click Invite collaborators/viewers. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 14:49:33 2008 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:49:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48B9E8C8.E384ACAD@ix.netcom.com> References: <00d801c90b7e$d8493130$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <48B9E8C8.E384ACAD@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Sylvia and all, > > Sorry but I refuse to use Google Thanks for letting me know you won't be participating. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Sep 1 16:40:28 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:40:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <48B9E757.6806CED4 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:35:35 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >>Who would act if an illegal strip-club opened in your small town main >>street? > > The city council would shut it down, I can assure you IF it ever was >to receive a business license to open such a business in the first >place. I wasn't assuming it ever had a business licence - it's illegal, remember. > Yet personally, I have no problem with Internet gambling, although >it needs to be properly provided for, and therefore regulated to >some degree. The question is as an Internet Right, can this be >effected on a global basis and enforceable accordingly and effectively? If you mean "the right to run a gambling site", then no, because different countries and cultures have a different view of the businesses run inside their borders. > BTW, "strip clubs", ect. are not normally considered "Pornographic", It's just another form of business where opinions may differ, geographically. >I do believe that some limited regulation is or may be advisable >and possibly even necessary for the greater good. But such >IMO, should be determined by referendum vote by the governed. And as evidenced by your examples, on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. -- 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 lists at privaterra.info Mon Sep 1 16:51:22 2008 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Danny: Indeed I'm a member of NCUC , so what? Had I thought the issue is of interest to the ICANN community, i would have posted a message on one of the many icann related lists i'm on. However, my view is that content regulation policy is incompatible with ICANN's technical misison. However, it is something that is being discussed in the IGF space, which is - the - reason I posted the message on this list and not elsewhere. Furthermore, I also mentioned in my original message that I thought the message is likely of interest to this list as a great deal of workshops at the upcoming IGF in India will be focused on the topic. In case you haven't seen the list - the proposed workshop list is there: http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php APC, the Council of Europe and others will be presenting on the topic. So is posting a message related to a IGF workshops of interest to the list ? I hope so. I hope others agree as well. regards Robert On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > Robert, > > Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's NonCommercial Constituency, just as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification you could arrange a debate on this topic within your own constituency. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hananeb at diplomacy.edu Mon Sep 1 18:29:25 2008 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 00:29:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Hi, Just a quick note about this section. I suggested to Parminder to include the right to have a multiligual Internet. If you agree we can adjust the following paragraph ( the last two sentences). >> > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are >> > underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital >> > space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. >> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of >> > positive >> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the >> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights >> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones >> > own language, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Hanane Boujemi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 1 20:45:24 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:45:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080901152940.5E865E2FA1@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080901152940.5E865E2FA1@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <19F82366-2923-4BF3-95F1-2D3212327FD3@Malcolm.id.au> On 01/09/2008, at 11:29 PM, Parminder wrote: > Members can ask for access to Google doc platform, or give comments > here which will be incorporated. If this platform is inconvenient, I > can try to set up a wiki. Any help in this matter will be greatly > appreciated. There already is a wiki available at http://wiki.igf-online.net/ - add a page for "Internet Governance Caucus" and go for it (the same applies to anyone else with IGF-related material). I don't mind Google Docs though. Also I'm happy with the current state of the input paper. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 04:26:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 01:26:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48BBA717.165F995C@ix.netcom.com> Hanane and all, A multiligual Internet is certainly prefrable, and advisable. It is very questionable that a multiligual Internet is a "Right". It certainly is a *responsibility* of each countries government to provide for Internet access and use for their citizens in that countries native official language. But again, such is not an International "Right", nor is their any precident that would indicate such. Yet I look forward to the day when countries with responsible governments provide for Internet use and access in that countries native or primary language so that it's citizens can share and participate in a far more meaningful and productive way. Hanane Boujemi wrote: > Hi, > > Just a quick note about this section. I suggested to Parminder to include > the right to have a multiligual Internet. > > If you agree we can adjust the following paragraph ( the last two > sentences). > > >> > Freedom of expression and openness of the Internet are > >> > underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital > >> > space is increasingly understood as a very important Internet right. > >> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > >> > positive > >> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the > >> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights > >> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones > >> > own language, which can underpin the > > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > Hanane Boujemi Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 2 02:39:59 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:09:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080902064009.A977FA6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hanane > If you agree we can adjust the following paragraph ( the last two > sentences). I have included the changes suggested by you in the document on google docs. Thanks. Parminder The current form of the doc is as below ...... IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet Freedom of expression and openness of the internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important internet right. Conceptions of rights and the internet also extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a possible right to the internet is being articulated by some, and to collective rights such as those of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to know, access to information and the right to share information, including perhaps freedom of expression itself. The right to public information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where digitized information is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Many other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the shaping of internet policies that best serve public interests in these areas. It is a widely held fear that while the internet gives unprecedented new economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it may further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this context, it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means in this new, much more globalized and digitized, context. Consumers of digital products face new challenges and the consumer's right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for is another emerging area of importance. This has great relevance in a context where corporations are able to extend their digital tentacles of control into people's houses and their personal devices, in a manner as yet unsuspected by consumers. The 'right to property' has conventionally been considered of considerable importance. However its applicability and mutations in the the digital environment, particularly in the form of Intellectual Property rights, is current being widely contested. In fact, this issue is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR and the development of the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles of neutrality and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the also the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF, Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 2 03:33:48 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:03:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080901155540.84C0DA6C88@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080902073403.DCD9CE2FAA@smtp3.electricembers.net> The document has also been put on Google docs. All those who want to edit it please let me or Ian know. Thanks. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 9:25 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper Hi All The initial proposal was to give IGC's submission to the IGF Hyderabad synthesis paper on two subjects. One on 'rights and the Internet' has already been proposed. A draft for a second input on the crucial issue of 'review of the IGF' is proposed for member's consideration as below. Thanks. Parminder IGC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the TA, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, not due to the fact that they are not impacted by IG and therefore may not have legitimate interest in it, but because of various structural issues. In this context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies in developing counties. Since the IGF has had 'development' as a central theme, it is important to make special efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development activity, including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. It is not therefore enough to announce open consultations, but tangible efforts to reach out to different stakeholders and constituencies should be made. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not advisable to rely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. In selecting 'experts' possible biases should be anticipated and accounted for. Due to the primarily (global) public policy mandate and role of the IGF, the selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. IGC offers its assistance in organizing this main session on the basis of its work in this area, including that which it will undertake for its proposed workshop in Hyderabad. IGC also offers all help in reaching out to civil society actors and constituencies for a comprehensive process of review of the IGF, and will like to be formally associated with the review process in this regard. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure To the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF is a very important global institution in the global IG space, as well a bold new experiment in global policy landscape, and therefore it should continue indefinitely beyond its first mandated period of five years. The Caucus also completely agrees with the mandate given to the IGF by TA, and the context of its establishing. We understand that the mandate is ambitious and complex, whereby a process of evolution towards its complete fulfillment may be needed. However, it is important to keep an eye on the full mandate as we go forward, and continuously make progress in achieving in its letter and intent. It is important that as a deliberative forum IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space. Very likely, more controversial is an issue, more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where it can be handled by use of reason, mutual understating and accommodation. Outcomes from deliberations at the IGF can, thereupon, be used for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape[1]. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. However, this should be done in a manner that expands the multi-stakeholder nature of global internet policy institutional framework rather than narrows it. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. As Internet policy issues become more complex and demanding the role of the IGF is expected to considerably grow, within its existing mandate, from the largely cautious 'stakeholders perspectives/ differences matching' and 'bringing the parties to the table' roles that it performs at present. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is already becoming evident. It is important in this regard for the IGF to have a more substantive inter-sessional work program rather than just of planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in substantive themes based Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. This useful start should be taken forward for more structured AND substantive inter-sessional work. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. _____ _____ [1] To mention some of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 05:41:23 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 02:41:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] EU Commission website on Future of the Internet launched Message-ID: <48BBB8C3.8D25D7DC@ix.netcom.com> All, As and FYI only: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/index_en.htm Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Tue Sep 2 04:24:33 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:24:33 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not In-Reply-To: <3530.24.156.158.46.1220216806.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> References: <20080809003439.60938.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <48A0B282.1080804@umontreal.ca> <20080827101050.GE16812@nic.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F02828B50@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828033008.GA26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D33C@ensms02.iris.se> <1219924085.5668.88.camel@sunil-laptop> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D4E5@ensms02.iris.se> <20080828181604.GA24496@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285D9B7@ensms02.iris.se> <20080831192953.GB1410@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <3530.24.156.158.46.1220216806.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0285E15A@ensms02.iris.se> Dear again Catherine, Thanks a lot for a very good contribution, and I am happy for your statistics, that is beyond the ratification number of the CRPD! I am very happy also for your understanding of the grave problem copyright issues makes to us! Just a small example of a similar limitation, the Library of Congress in the USA, produce talking books, both cassettes, Braille or on DAISY for blind and visually impaired persons, but you are not allowed, due to national copyright limitations, to borrow a book from the USA that is produce in the USA! But if you live in the UK you are allowed to borrow that book! I have tried to just for a short time read a book produced in the USA, but I was not allowed so now this book has to be produced in Sweden! In Sweden we have accepted to allow for international loans and but how will this be developed then we, everyone, can download books from internet? In Sweden we do already provide "stream reading" from internet for students! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: zara [mailto:ecrire at catherine-roy.net] Skickat: den 31 augusti 2008 23:07 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: [governance] Re: Why standards from ISO are not For detailed information and analysis on the issue of copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities, I would suggest reading (or, at 233 pages, trying to anyway) WIPO's "Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired" : As the executive summary indicates, "The framework in international treaties and conventions relating to intellectual property seems to permit exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people. Indeed, exceptions seem possible with respect to a wide range of acts restricted by copyright that might be undertaken by those making and supplying accessible copies to visually impaired people. However, the possibility of such provision is not specifically addressed and is not mandatory under these treaties and conventions, although it is widely accepted that copyright laws should provide a balance between the interests of different stakeholders. Also, especially where several different treaties and conventions need to be considered, the conditions that might apply to exceptions is quite complicated and there may be some doubt regarding exceptions to the adaptation right in particular. In examining exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people in national laws, 57 countries have been found that have specific provisions that would permit activity to assist visually impaired people unable to access the written word, or to assist people with a print disability more generally, by making a copyright work available to them in an accessible form. Some of the exceptions found in these countries would also permit other types of assistance for handicapped people, and two further countries have been found that have exceptions that would permit, amongst other things, audio description of broadcasts. It has not been possible in this Study to consider to what extent exceptions of other types would permit activity for the benefit of visually impaired people, such as exceptions permitting private copying, use of copyright works for educational purposes and those applying to activity in or by libraries,. But it seems unlikely that such exceptions would provide a comprehensive solution to the legitimate needs of visually impaired people unable because of copyright constraints to access the written word." And from what I understand, WIPO is considering addressing the issue further in its next agenda. Of course, many rights holders would prefer that international treaties and national legislation not contain copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities as the problem of access for this population would, according to them, reside in the cost for re-formatting and that reduction in cost can only be achieved through cooperation with rights holders. Additionally, there are of course concerns about abuse and piracy. Finally, with the development of electronic formats and access tools for persons with disabilities, many feel that copyright exceptions would become moot as technology evolves. Personally, considering how far behind ICT accessibility is, I will not hold my breathe on that. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Sun, August 31, 2008 3:29 pm, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Kicki Nordström > (kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org) wrote: > >> I do not know of any exceptions in international laws concerning >> persons with disabilities! I doubt that ISO have made any exceptions >> and ISO standards are not laws either. National laws may have >> exceptions but not any international exceptions. > > I guess it depends on how you define "international", but at least > European Union laws have such exceptions, notably in EU Copyright > Directive. > >> The only mentioning of concerns is the new UN Convention on the >> rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). In article 30 is >> intellectual properties mentioned which should not constitute >> limitation for PWD. But CRPD apply only to countries that have >> ratified the convention. > > There's probably nothing that applies to all countries, I'm afraid. :-( > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 2 04:30:18 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:30:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> In message <48BB3BEF.A933CB11 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:48:47 on Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >Roland and all, >> >>Who would act if an illegal strip-club opened in your small town main >> >>street? >> > >> > The city council would shut it down, I can assure you IF it ever was >> >to receive a business license to open such a business in the first >> >place. >> >> I wasn't assuming it ever had a business licence - it's illegal, >> remember. > > No it's not an illegal business in Texas. It IS against some city or >county ordinances. The distinction is small admittedly, but distinct. Forget Texas; the question had a presumption that such a club would be illegal in the town under discussion. (If you prefer, pick a different business that *would* be illegal in a town of your choice). > The Internet is global, ergo borders as far as access are not relevant. This is about the hosting, the running of the business; not access. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 06:45:54 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:45:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080902064009.A977FA6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48BBC7E2.ABFC11D0@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, "A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet", should read "A complex new emerging ecology of rights OF the internet" Otherwise, so far so good, but seemingly a bit too lengthy for my taste, yet accurate and explanitory. Parminder wrote: > Hanane > > > If you agree we can adjust the following paragraph ( the last two > > sentences). > > I have included the changes suggested by you in the document on google docs. > Thanks. Parminder > > The current form of the doc is as below ...... > > IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > Freedom of expression and openness of the internet are underpinned by > recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly > understood as a very important internet right. Conceptions of rights and the > internet also extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the > area of access, where a possible right to the internet is being articulated > by some, and to collective rights such as those of cultural expression - > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can > inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to know, access to information > and the right to share information, including perhaps freedom of expression > itself. The right to public information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where digitized information is publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area. > > Many other rights such as the right of association and the right to > political participation may have important new implications in the internet > age, including the shaping of internet policies that best serve public > interests in these areas. > > It is a widely held fear that while the internet gives unprecedented new > economic, social and political opportunities in many new areas, it may > further widen economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason > that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In > this context, it might be useful to explore what the term "right to > development" means in this new, much more globalized and digitized, context. > > Consumers of digital products face new challenges and the consumer's right > to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for is > another emerging area of importance. This has great relevance in a context > where corporations are able to extend their digital tentacles of control > into people's houses and their personal devices, in a manner as yet > unsuspected by consumers. > > The 'right to property' has conventionally been considered of considerable > importance. However its applicability and mutations in the the digital > environment, particularly in the form of Intellectual Property rights, is > current being widely contested. In fact, this issue is emerging as a primary > area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can > explore issues surounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR > and the development of the concept of a right to access knowledge in the > digital space. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles of neutrality and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality > as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly > central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation > and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG > Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this > purpose. > > It is the also the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to > take up this task. This process should start at the IGF, Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects > that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and > the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 07:09:44 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:09:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, Again my response is interspersed below Rolands... Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48BB3BEF.A933CB11 at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:48:47 on Sun, 31 Aug > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > >Roland and all, > > >> >>Who would act if an illegal strip-club opened in your small town main > >> >>street? > >> > > >> > The city council would shut it down, I can assure you IF it ever was > >> >to receive a business license to open such a business in the first > >> >place. > >> > >> I wasn't assuming it ever had a business licence - it's illegal, > >> remember. > > > > No it's not an illegal business in Texas. It IS against some city or > >county ordinances. The distinction is small admittedly, but distinct. > > Forget Texas; the question had a presumption that such a club would be > illegal in the town under discussion. (If you prefer, pick a different > business that *would* be illegal in a town of your choice). Huh? What town under discussion? You lost me there. Any business would be illegal IF it didn't have a proper business lic. if one was required. Different states, as well as municipalities have different legal requirements. > > > > The Internet is global, ergo borders as far as access are not relevant. > > This is about the hosting, the running of the business; not access. Ah, ok very different criterion than. Hosting as to local, again depends as to legality of content available, on the country and state/province in which the actual hosting is. But again, hosting is also irrelevant to a lessor degree admittedly, as again the access would be global. Now if you were talking about an IntrAnet or and ExtrAnet, that where such limited access domain names are IS or could be relevant depending on how limited those *networks* were in respect to national boundaries or boarders, AND IF those DN's were accessible by the public Internet via a gateway server or other gateway hardware or even software. My company specializes in this technology for secure networks for instance... Another potential and existing example would be other root servers structures OR additionally and perhaps separately, but not necessarily so, other non-compatable for data exchange or transmit, other IP ( as in TCP/IP ) protocols. IPv9 for instance, * instead of* IPv4 or IPv6. Note however: We have been working on inter operability of IPv9 too either IPv4 or IPv6. So even IPv9 may at some point not be an exception. Given 64 bit architecture, it won't be long and no currently known or even experimental IP based architecture will be *stand alone* operationally or compatibly speaking. > > > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Sep 2 05:47:18 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:47:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8 at ix.netcom.com>, at 04:09:44 on Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >Any business would be illegal IF it didn't have a proper business lic. >if one was required. A town (somewhere in the world, not in necessarily Texas) will close down a local business if it's illegal either: 1) because (as you point out) any business might be illegal without some sort of licence according to that town's rules or 2) because (and this was my original point) despite the fact that any business *can* be started without a licence in that town [true in UK for example], some sorts of business are nevertheless illegal because of what they trade in. >Different states, as well as municipalities have different legal requirements. That's all I'm trying to establish. You should not expect to apply your own rules (Texan or otherwise) to businesses in other places. >> > The Internet is global, ergo borders as far as access are not relevant. >> >> This is about the hosting, the running of the business; not access. > > Ah, ok very different criterion than. Hosting as to local, again depends >as to legality of content available, on the country and state/province in >which the actual hosting is. Good, we agree. So enforce it there first, please. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 2 11:28:23 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:28:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <868295.10608.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E594@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Like Carlos, I am not sure how to interpret your comment, Danny. I welcome Robert's bringing it to the IGC's attention. > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 6:54 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? > > Robert, > > Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's NonCommercial Constituency, just > as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification you could arrange a debate > on this topic within your own constituency. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Sep 2 16:08:43 2008 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E594@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <811816.30100.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Milton, I tend to find structured debates useful and informative. Such a debate at Cairo might serve to better inform upcoming discussions. If Cheryl intends to be at the Cairo session perhaps such a debate could be organized... just food for thought. Danny --- On Tue, 9/2/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > From: Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" > Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:28 AM > Like Carlos, I am not sure how to interpret your comment, > Danny. I > welcome Robert's bringing it to the IGC's > attention. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 6:54 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Do We Need An Internet > Zoning Law? > > > > Robert, > > > > Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's > NonCommercial Constituency, > just > > as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification > you could arrange a > debate > > on this topic within your own constituency. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 19:51:56 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:51:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Info-Activism Camp: India Feb, 2009 - Pass it on! Message-ID: <48BC801C.A1671F05@ix.netcom.com> All, An FYI.. >>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Do you want to learn how to use digital advocacy to create change? >>>> >>>> Are you interested in using mobile phones to reach out to your >>>> community but don't know how? >>>> >>>> Do you produce reports full of crucial data but feel like the >>>> right people aren't reading them? >>>> >>>> Do you know that using the internet and mobile phones for your >>>> advocacy work can create security vulnerabilities but don't know >>>> how to protect yourself against them? >>>> >>>> If your answer is yes, then read on....and be a participant at >>>> our Info-Activism Camp! >>>> >>>> The Info-Activism camp will bring together 120 rights advocates >>>> from the global South with technologists, designers and activists >>>> for a week long hands-on workshop to share skills, tools and >>>> tactics in digital advocacy. >>>> >>>> Info-Activism is an approach to advocacy that recognises the >>>> artful use of information and communications as a primary tactic >>>> in successful campaigns. >>>> >>>> The camp provides a space for intensive learning and doing, a >>>> structured 'skill-share' environment for experienced advocates >>>> that will give them the confidence and know-how to leverage the >>>> limited resources they have to create greater impact. During the >>>> week, participants will learn how to creatively integrate new >>>> technologies in to their advocacy and create long lasting >>>> connections with other advocates and tech-activists. >>>> >>>> The camp will give rights advocates the practical skills, tools >>>> and techniques to use technology to: >>>> >>>> Gather and analyse information and facilitate evidence-based >>>> campaigning >>>> Create and disseminate targeted, accessible and engaging >>>> information for advocacy efforts that have impact on targets and >>>> mobilise support >>>> Increase participation from affected communities >>>> Enable cooperation and coordination with allies >>>> Minimise security and privacy vulnerabilities >>>> The Info-Activism Camp is organised by Tactical Tech and will be >>>> held in India, February 2009. Tactical Tech is an international >>>> NGO helping rights advocates use information, communications and >>>> digital technologies to maximise the impact of their advocacy >>>> work. We provide advocates with guides, tools, training and >>>> consultancy to help them develop the skills and tactics they need >>>> to increase the impact of their campaigning. Read more about our >>>> work at http://www.tacticaltech.org >>>> >>>> More details along with the application form will be available by >>>> end of September 2008. The working language of the camp will be >>>> English. If you want to learn more about the camp in the meantime >>>> or sign up to get an application form, please write to >>>> infoactivism at tacticaltech.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Sep 2 18:02:03 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:02:03 +1000 Subject: [governance] NomCom Pool for Apeals Team announcement Message-ID: <077F0F1D7A474ADE876716CB7DFAED04@IAN> The period for establishment of the Nomcom pool for Appeals Team is now closed. The pool from which five NomCom members will be selected is 1. Jeremy Malcolm 2. Jeffrey A Williams 3. Fouad Bajwa 4. Mark Costa 5. Adam Peake 6. Timothy McGinnis (McTim) 7. Gurumurthy Kasinathan 8. Hong Xue 9. William Drake 10. Anriette Esterhuysen 11. Rafik Dammak 12. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 13. Philippe Dam 14. Jeanette Hofmann 15. Solomon Gizaw 16. Pavel P Antonov 17. Dave Kissoondoyal 18. Shaila Mistry Rao 19. Jacques Berleur 20. Thomas Lowenhaupt 21. Izumi Aizu 22. Tapani Tarvainen 23. Gao Mosweu 24. Tricia Wang 25. Lisa Horner 26. Sergio Salinas Porto 27. Rudi Rusdiah 28. Danny Butt Please note there were also a small number of volunteers who were not IGC members. Much though their offer was appreciated, they have not been able to be included on this list. The list is now complete and will be frozen 48 hours from now. Anyone who urgently feels their name has been inadvertently left out, and who desperately wants to be added, must contact me by email within this 48 hour period. The random selection procedure will use the code documented in RFC 3797 "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection". The selection will take place on September 6 and results will be announced shortly thereafter. The seed sources for random number selection will be taken from the Sept 6 drawing of the following lotteries: http://www.lotto.ie/ Lotto number w/o the bonus number http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/home/home.do lotto w/o bonus number http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_numbers.asp powerball number w/o powerball number Anyone who wishes to extract the code from the RFC and collect the same seeds will be able to produce the same results and verify the results. After the results are announced, there will be a 48 hour period before the nomcom starts its work to allow members who may wish to do so, to run the procedure to verify the results and for the chair of the nomcom to confirm the willingness of those selected to serve. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 20:04:18 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:04:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48BC8302.58E16D1E@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8 at ix.netcom.com>, at 04:09:44 on Mon, 1 Sep > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > > >Any business would be illegal IF it didn't have a proper business lic. > >if one was required. > > A town (somewhere in the world, not in necessarily Texas) will close > down a local business if it's illegal either: > > 1) because (as you point out) any business might be illegal without some > sort of licence according to that town's rules or Towns or states, or federal I believe you mean. > > > 2) because (and this was my original point) despite the fact that any > business *can* be started without a licence in that town [true in UK for > example], some sorts of business are nevertheless illegal because of > what they trade in. Absolutely right but not complete. 2b.) And if that "Trade" has global reach than in accordance to USTR trade regulations, that business would be subject to those rules/regulations/trade agreements/extranious laws as well lets not forget. > > > >Different states, as well as municipalities have different legal requirements. > > That's all I'm trying to establish. You should not expect to apply your > own rules (Texan or otherwise) to businesses in other places. No. Long arm Statutes, trade agreements of various sorts that have rules either implied or specified, also apply. > > > >> > The Internet is global, ergo borders as far as access are not relevant. > >> > >> This is about the hosting, the running of the business; not access. > > > > Ah, ok very different criterion than. Hosting as to local, again depends > >as to legality of content available, on the country and state/province in > >which the actual hosting is. > > Good, we agree. So enforce it there first, please. Not entirely, but mostly. Hosting only deals with location of a DN based business, not it's reach on a global scale. So enforcment is both internal to a US state, and a national government as such applies to existing trade agreements that may or clearly do apply, unless that DN based business is technically restricted in such a way, such as an extrAnet or IntrAnet that has no out of hosting country ability. The devil is in the technical details often times, Roland... > > > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 20:26:53 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:26:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [ga] Washington Post to expose ICANN registrar ESTDomains References: <841883.18199.qm@web52211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48BC884D.D181C549@ix.netcom.com> Danny and all, Actually this was known years ago and discussed on the old DNSO GA list, now defunct but archives still available. However the main stream media only covered parts of the whole story then. Now, thanks to many of our members, and other individuals, a more complete story has been properly covered/revieled, thanks to the Washington Post, NY Times, and others. But most of that comprehensive story was pieced together better by Derek's piece on his blog. Again see: http://www.knujon.com/news.html Kudo's to Derek! Yet, there is of course much, much more to this saga that has been unfolding for nearly 9 years now, with ICANN in the middle of it, .XXX, not withstanding... I can only wonder when, if ever, the DOJ is going to act? It's not as if they have not had much of this information available or spoon fed to them for nearly 9 years now. I know personally, I helped feed it to them, along with many others. And I have all the archives of my small contribution, along with quite a bit of others contributions. Danny Younger wrote: > A Washington Post article by Brian Krebs entitled "Report Slams U.S. Host as Major Source of Badware" promises a follow-up article on ICANN accredited registrar ESTdomains: > > "In a follow-up post, Security Fix will examine the activities of Atrivo's largest customer: domain name registrar ESTDomains". > > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/08/report_slams_us_host_as_major.html > > Estdomains recently came to our attention when LegitScript and KnujOn sent a letter to EstDomains requesting they terminate an unlicensed steroid site being sponsored at EstDomains. We were told that EstDomains never responded and the site is sill active. > > Other online sources point to known Storm Botnet related FastFlux Domains registered by way of ESTDomains -- see http://www.disog.org/text/storm-fastflux.txt > > Also, Estdomains recently experienced over three weeks of downtime for their domain privacy protection service, the service failure exposing all domain registration information to the public during that episode -- see http://www.johnraul.com/estdomains-domain-privacy-down-for-three-weeks-now/ > > It will be interesting to see which (if any) provisions of the proposed Registrar Accreditation Agreement will deal with the revelations that emerge in the Washington Post's next article. > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 21:22:55 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:22:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for Breaching UN Employee's eMail Account Message-ID: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> All, Perhaps the upcoming Cairo meeting should be moved? See: September 1, 2008) A Dubai court has sentenced a man who worked as a secretary for a United Nations employee to three months in jail for accessing a UN employee's email account, stealing her credit card information and sending her threatening messages from another of her email accounts he broke into. The man, who is Egyptian, will be deported once he completes his sentence. http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10241859.html As a side note: I really wish my countries DOJ and affiliated state organizations were as concerned as it appears the Dubai court was here. Perhaps their jurisprudence has eclipsed my own countries? I hope not... But certainly it seems in this case, they have. >:( As a victim of IDtheft myself, I can at least personally attest to that fact, sad on several levels, to say... >:( Semper fi, "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 2 19:39:00 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 16:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for Breaching UN Employee's eMail Account Message-ID: <560790.3501.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> What's this got to do with the Cairo meeting? ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeffrey A. Williams To: Ga ; Sen. Cronyn Cc: Governance/IGC ; Greg Abbott ; "Peretti, Kimberly Kiefer" ; Public Information ; Jon Stanley ; Cynthia Stamer ; GAC Rep Sent: Tuesday, 2 September, 2008 11:22:55 AM Subject: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for Breaching UN Employee's eMail Account All, Perhaps the upcoming Cairo meeting should be moved? See: September 1, 2008) A Dubai court has sentenced a man who worked as a secretary for a United Nations employee to three months in jail for accessing a UN employee's email account, stealing her credit card information and sending her threatening messages from another of her email accounts he broke into. The man, who is Egyptian, will be deported once he completes his sentence. http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10241859.html As a side note: I really wish my countries DOJ and affiliated state organizations were as concerned as it appears the Dubai court was here. Perhaps their jurisprudence has eclipsed my own countries? I hope not... But certainly it seems in this case, they have. >:( As a victim of IDtheft myself, I can at least personally attest to that fact, sad on several levels, to say... >:( Semper fi, "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Win a MacBook Air or iPod touch with Yahoo!7. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 2 23:40:29 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 23:40:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <811816.30100.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841DF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> OK, so you were making a constructive suggestion to have a policy debate on this topic, rather than a negative one to take it away from here. I think it's a good idea, though with ncuc elections and other issues I doubt I wold have the bandwidth to arrange it. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] Sent: Tue 9/2/2008 4:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? Milton, I tend to find structured debates useful and informative. Such a debate at Cairo might serve to better inform upcoming discussions. If Cheryl intends to be at the Cairo session perhaps such a debate could be organized... just food for thought. Danny --- On Tue, 9/2/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > From: Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" > Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:28 AM > Like Carlos, I am not sure how to interpret your comment, > Danny. I > welcome Robert's bringing it to the IGC's > attention. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 6:54 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Do We Need An Internet > Zoning Law? > > > > Robert, > > > > Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's > NonCommercial Constituency, > just > > as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification > you could arrange a > debate > > on this topic within your own constituency. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 3 00:00:06 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:00:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> >> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of >> > positive >> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the >> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights >> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones >> > own language, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures. I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 00:27:12 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 07:27:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: All, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >>> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of >>> > positive >>> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the >>> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights >>> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones >>> > own language, which can underpin the >> > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a > thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this > context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that > people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, > association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures. > Agreed, I think we are really over-reaching here. > I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention > around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own > views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements > honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement > differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we > one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. I am agreeing 2x in one mail with Milton, will wonders never cease? ;-) -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 2 05:17:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:17:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <811816.30100.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841DF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BD048B.AECB75DC@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, I am sure this debate is not worth the bandwidth really. It's not a novel idea as you know, as it has been floated before long ago now and was eventually defeated as a viable idea inside the *legacy* Internet. As to why it is being revisited I suspect has allot to do with the .XXX TLD. Milton L Mueller wrote: > OK, so you were making a constructive suggestion to have a policy > debate on this topic, rather than a negative one to take it away from > here. I think it's a good idea, though with ncuc elections and other > issues I doubt I wold have the bandwidth to arrange it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Tue 9/2/2008 4:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? > > Milton, > > I tend to find structured debates useful and informative. Such a > debate at Cairo might serve to better inform upcoming discussions. If > Cheryl intends to be at the Cairo session perhaps such a debate could > be organized... just food for thought. > > Danny > > > --- On Tue, 9/2/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > From: Milton L Mueller > > Subject: RE: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" > > > Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:28 AM > > Like Carlos, I am not sure how to interpret your comment, > > Danny. I > > welcome Robert's bringing it to the IGC's > > attention. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 6:54 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Do We Need An Internet > > Zoning Law? > > > > > > Robert, > > > > > > Cheryl B. Preston is a member of ICANN's > > NonCommercial Constituency, > > just > > > as you are. Perhaps for everyone's edification > > you could arrange a > > debate > > > on this topic within your own constituency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 2 05:22:56 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:22:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BD05EF.71678F7B@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Thank you for your support. As I have already articulated for the I don't know how many times, rights of language and collective rights are a non sequiter, and should be stricken accordingly, I don't care whom is "Holding the pen". I respect greatly Parminder's and others feelings on this, but the facts do not change based upon such feelings in as much as effectual rights are concerned. Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > >> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > >> > positive > >> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to > the > >> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective > rights > >> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in > ones > >> > own language, which can underpin the > > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is > such a thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is > meaningful in this context, and have no idea what is meant by > "cultural rights" -- except that people have spent centuries violating > all kinds of rights -- expression, association, life -- in an attempt > to protect collectivities or cultures. > > I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of > contention around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can > put his own views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these > disagreements honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the > statement differences of views about what rights are and how they are > defined, or we one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding > the pen. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 2 05:26:42 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:26:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BD06D2.4EBAE7E1@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, Behold, wonders are never predictable. Someday Google will not be such a prolific spammer. And when that occurs, it will be a wonder to behold! >:) But alas, I have great doubt that such will occur in my lifetime. McTim wrote: > All, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > >>> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > >>> > positive > >>> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the > >>> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights > >>> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones > >>> > own language, which can underpin the > >> > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a > > thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this > > context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that > > people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, > > association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures. > > > > Agreed, I think we are really over-reaching here. > > > I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention > > around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own > > views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements > > honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement > > differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we > > one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. > > I am agreeing 2x in one mail with Milton, will wonders never cease? ;-) > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 3 03:41:59 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:41:59 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48BD06D2.4EBAE7E1@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84261F5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear Jeff you promised some weeks ago to reduce your number of mails. 11 mails in 24 hours is quite a lot. While I appreciate some of your comments I would be thankful to have it reduced to five per day. Thanks a lot for your understanding. Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sendt: ti 02-09-2008 11:26 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Emne: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper McTim and all, Behold, wonders are never predictable. Someday Google will not be such a prolific spammer. And when that occurs, it will be a wonder to behold! >:) But alas, I have great doubt that such will occur in my lifetime. McTim wrote: > All, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > >>> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of > >>> > positive > >>> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the > >>> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights > >>> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones > >>> > own language, which can underpin the > >> > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a > > thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this > > context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that > > people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, > > association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures. > > > > Agreed, I think we are really over-reaching here. > > > I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention > > around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own > > views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements > > honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement > > differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we > > one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. > > I am agreeing 2x in one mail with Milton, will wonders never cease? ;-) > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Sep 3 04:06:59 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:06:59 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for Breaching UN Employee's eMail Account In-Reply-To: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> References: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F0289165F@ensms02.iris.se> Dear all, Concerning DAISY and MP3, here is the reply from DAISY: Hello Kicki, In the year 2000 we got the information that, for the use of mp3 in the library service it is free of charge if our products are made for lending. We received this information from Fraunhofer Institute. Best regards, Kjell I assume that DAISY as non-commercial may have this exceptions as someone said earlier. Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Skickat: den 2 september 2008 03:23 Till: Ga; Sen. Cronyn Kopia: Governance/IGC; Greg Abbott; Peretti, Kimberly Kiefer; Public Information; Jon Stanley; Cynthia Stamer; GAC Rep Ämne: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for Breaching UN Employee's eMail Account All, Perhaps the upcoming Cairo meeting should be moved? See: September 1, 2008) A Dubai court has sentenced a man who worked as a secretary for a United Nations employee to three months in jail for accessing a UN employee's email account, stealing her credit card information and sending her threatening messages from another of her email accounts he broke into. The man, who is Egyptian, will be deported once he completes his sentence. http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10241859.html As a side note: I really wish my countries DOJ and affiliated state organizations were as concerned as it appears the Dubai court was here. Perhaps their jurisprudence has eclipsed my own countries? I hope not... But certainly it seems in this case, they have. >:( As a victim of IDtheft myself, I can at least personally attest to that fact, sad on several levels, to say... >:( Semper fi, "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asif at kabani.co.uk Wed Sep 3 04:28:00 2008 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:28:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for Breaching UN Employee's eMail Account In-Reply-To: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> References: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <8017791e0809030128k501bfe88sc7be6c6d030e1c89@mail.gmail.com> All, Thanks for the information Good or part of Dubai Government and Court. Please guides us What's this got to do with the Cairo meeting? regards 2008/9/2 Jeffrey A. Williams > All, > > Perhaps the upcoming Cairo meeting should be moved? > > See: > September 1, 2008) > A Dubai court has sentenced a man who worked as a secretary for a United > > Nations employee to three months in jail for accessing a UN employee's > email account, stealing her credit card information and sending her > threatening messages from another of her email accounts he broke into. > The man, who is Egyptian, will be deported once he completes his > sentence. > http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10241859.html > > As a side note: I really wish my countries DOJ and affiliated state > organizations were as concerned as it appears the Dubai court was > here. Perhaps their jurisprudence has eclipsed my own countries? > I hope not... But certainly it seems in this case, they have. >:( As > a victim of IDtheft myself, I can at least personally attest to that > fact, > sad on several levels, to say... >:( > > Semper fi, > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 04:43:37 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:13:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080903084350.B7B59A6C2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Milton >I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own views into our mouths. >As always, >we can engage with these disagreements honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement differences of views about what rights are and >how they are defined, or we >one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. It was decided on basis of discussions around our input to September MAG consultations that we try to seek IGC inputs to the IGF, Hyderabad, synthesis paper on two subjects - 'rights agenda in IGF' and 'review of the IGF'. This decision was taken on the above basis by the co-coordinators. Ian asked me to do the first draft. Before doing an initial draft a call for open comments was given, as also a proposal made for forming working groups. Neither you nor anyone else responded. After that an initial draft was proposed. Any other IGC member has as much right as the initial drafter to change the draft. A collaborative platform was also set up for this purpose and a few members have exercised that right. I have a right as much as any other member to propose that some of my views be a part of the draft. Even if I had not proposed the initial draft I would have suggested these amendments. So, how is it that I am 'holding the pen' and putting words in others' mouths. Why dont you hold the pen. McTim, who now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. Additionally, it is my 'tentative' judgment, open to being corrected, that a very large majority on this list do support exploring all internationally recognized human rights - civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and that to development - in the context of the Internet. This gives me adequate basis for proposing this draft, which is open for members' comments, and amendments. It is up to the members, as per their political views, to support, oppose or ignore it - or engage with providing alternative texts etc. And one must also always remain conscious that in a larger group some give-and-take on developing common positions will be needed to be made. For instance I have considerable problem with global corporations exercising additional influence - as if their existing power was not dominating enough - through multistakeholder policy forums, but would not bring that issue up when this group is proposing positions of the ultimate greatness of multistakeholder-ism. But of course it is a personal and political decision for anyone to make or not make such compromises in a given situation. >one faction that is temporarily dominant.. Associating me with a 'dominant faction', even if temporarily so, on this list is a welcome surprise. I haven't really seen myself that way. But thanks in any case : - ) Parminder _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:30 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of >> > positive >> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the >> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights >> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones >> > own language, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures. I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 04:48:20 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:18:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080903084831.4ACBE67867@smtp1.electricembers.net> Milton >> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of >> > positive >> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the >> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights >> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones >> > own language, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. >I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this context, and have no >idea what is meant >by "cultural rights" -- except that people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, association, life -- in an attempt to >protect collectivities or cultures. (Milton) I cant start explaining the meaning of cultural rights here because there are many UN documents on it, and much existing scholarship. You may sit with someone from indigenous rights group to learn what are cultural and collective rights. As late as last year UN general assembly adopted the " United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples". But what you really mean to say is that that you just don't agree with all these rights. That's your political position, and that's fine. Cultural rights are mentioned in human rights instruments quoted repeatedly in the WSIS documents. There is express mention of these rights in civil society declarations during the WSIS. You may want to distance yourself from these documents, but I have reason to believe that a big majority of IGC members are of 'not' of this view. However, the issue is open for comments, and let us hear what the members have to say on it. The proposed input is not written in the form of a definitive exposition of what are rights in relation to the Internet but as a tentative exploration of territory of rights in this new context with a purpose of seeking a clearer and stronger engagement of all in this area. I would not be comfortable if IGC proposes any such tentative exploration without mentioning rights like cultural rights and positive rights at all. What you are saying is that the very categories of positive rights and collective rights do not pass muster with you, and I cannot accept this position for making the caucus statement. I would request IGC members to give their views on, and text proposals for, the proposed drafts for IGC inputs into the synthesis paper for IGF Hyderabad. We are running short of time now. So if you are going to say anything at all, please say it now. Parminder _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:30 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of >> > positive >> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the >> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights >> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones >> > own language, which can underpin the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures. I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 05:05:55 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:05:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080903084350.B7B59A6C2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080903084350.B7B59A6C2D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder wrote: pen. McTim, who > now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 06:49:40 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:19:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in > every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who being from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than many others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can proceed accordingly. BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its equivalent in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken of inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, Hyderabad's overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder > wrote: > pen. McTim, who > > now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. > > I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong > rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in > every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 3 07:07:54 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:07:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> Hi, it seems this is a debate we have to repeat again and again. I am no expert on matters of right but I lean towards a narrow interpretation of the term right. It makes sense to me to protect its meaning against an inflating use to avoid devaluation. A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me. jeanette Parminder wrote: > > This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim > > > I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who being > from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than many > others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can proceed > accordingly. > > BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its equivalent > in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken of > inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, Hyderabad's > overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept. > > Parminder > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Cc: Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder >> wrote: >> pen. McTim, who >>> now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. >> I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong >> rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> mctim.blogspot.com >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 07:50:45 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:20:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080903115101.114A06783E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Jeannette > A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights > holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see > who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own > language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly doesn't > sound like a right to me. How do you see 'right to education' then - a question that has come up here earlier? Do you or do you not believe in such a right? Who could be held accountable for lack of 'educational facilities'? In the same way that the state and other political formations can be held 'accountable' for lack of educational facilities, and thereby 'violating' ones right to education, these political entities can be held 'accountable' for other things if they are collectively found to be 'basic' to worthwhile human existence and such. On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop alternative conceptions to state centered notions of development, security, culture etc to move toward a more people-centric one. The problem with global Internet policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one which is built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are trying to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one. (For instance the logic of 'security' used by many repressive countries in a state-centric manner in order to take control of the Internet may need to be countered by use of language of 'right to human security' on the Internet as it is being used in the offline world.) (1)There could be a global Internet policy regime that, as today, remains centered on existing hegemonies. (2) It could move towards a state-centric system which can break existing hegemonies, but as we all know it would be as bad, or worse. (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such a framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception of human rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions that serve those who are at present politically dominant will neither be legitimate not acceptable to the big majority. And we won't make any process. Accordingly, we will remain caught in situation (1) above or move towards(2). Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:38 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller' > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > Hi, > > it seems this is a debate we have to repeat again and again. I am no > expert on matters of right but I lean towards a narrow interpretation of > the term right. It makes sense to me to protect its meaning against an > inflating use to avoid devaluation. > A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights > holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see > who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own > language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly doesn't > sound like a right to me. > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: > > > > This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in > >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > > > > > > I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who > being > > from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than many > > others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can > proceed > > accordingly. > > > > BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its > equivalent > > in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken > of > > inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, Hyderabad's > > overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > >> Cc: Milton L Mueller > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder > >> wrote: > >> pen. McTim, who > >>> now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. > >> I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong > >> rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in > >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> mctim.blogspot.com > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 3 08:03:59 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:03:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Message-ID: <48BE7D2F.7040500@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > Jeannette > >> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights >> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see >> who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own >> language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly doesn't >> sound like a right to me. > > How do you see 'right to education' then - a question that has come up here > earlier? Do you or do you not believe in such a right? If a national constitution contains proivisions to that effect, then there is a right to education that should enable citizens to bring action against the state. In Germany, citizens can submit cases to the constitutional court if they think their constitutional rights have been violated. I remember a long debate in Germany about a "right to work". This wasn't added to the constitution because it was said that the government is not in a position to guarantee a sufficient number of jobs. I mention this here as it seems to describe a similar situation. jeanette > > Who could be held accountable for lack of 'educational facilities'? In the > same way that the state and other political formations can be held > 'accountable' for lack of educational facilities, and thereby 'violating' > ones right to education, these political entities can be held 'accountable' > for other things if they are collectively found to be 'basic' to worthwhile > human existence and such. > > On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop alternative > conceptions to state centered notions of development, security, culture etc > to move toward a more people-centric one. The problem with global Internet > policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric > notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one which is > built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are trying > to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one. > > (For instance the logic of 'security' used by many repressive countries in a > state-centric manner in order to take control of the Internet may need to be > countered by use of language of 'right to human security' on the Internet as > it is being used in the offline world.) > > (1)There could be a global Internet policy regime that, as today, remains > centered on existing hegemonies. > > (2) It could move towards a state-centric system which can break existing > hegemonies, but as we all know it would be as bad, or worse. > > (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such a > framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception of human > rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions that serve > those who are at present politically dominant will neither be legitimate not > acceptable to the big majority. And we won't make any process. Accordingly, > we will remain caught in situation (1) above or move towards(2). > > > Parminder > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:38 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Cc: 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller' >> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> >> Hi, >> >> it seems this is a debate we have to repeat again and again. I am no >> expert on matters of right but I lean towards a narrow interpretation of >> the term right. It makes sense to me to protect its meaning against an >> inflating use to avoid devaluation. >> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights >> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see >> who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own >> language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly doesn't >> sound like a right to me. >> >> jeanette >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >>>> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> McTim >>> >>> I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who >> being >>> from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than many >>> others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can >> proceed >>> accordingly. >>> >>> BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its >> equivalent >>> in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken >> of >>> inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, Hyderabad's >>> overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>>> Cc: Milton L Mueller >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> pen. McTim, who >>>>> now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. >>>> I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong >>>> rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >>>> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> McTim >>>> mctim.blogspot.com >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 3 08:23:45 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:23:45 +0200 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> On 3 Sep 2008, at 13:07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights > holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't > see who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in > ones own language". The latter might be a political goal but it > certainly doesn't sound like a right to me. While i agree that we have to be careful with devaluation of rights by making the definition too broad, this would argue that there are no rights without authority - the prerequisite of 'someone to be held accountable' that is being offered in several people definitions. i believe we have rights, i would call them fundamental rights, on account of our definition of what it means to be human within a society and not because we have someone to hold accountable. Holding someone accountable is secondary to the existence of a right not the prerequisite for one. People had rights before the UDHR was adopted, they just were not spelled out in that form. There are rights that are fundamental because we are human and that is how we have agreed to define being human, some of these rights have been guaranteed, minus caveats like article 29, in the UDHR. There may also be fundamental rights that have not yet been protected (e.g sexual orientation, assistance for disability - though these may fall under the general rubric of other status in the UDHR) There are also derivative rights - those things that are rights by virtue of fundamental rights being dependent on those things. As an argument, the right to Internet for all in all languages could be interpreted as being a requirement by which a fundamental right - education can be met. e.g. UDHR Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. (2 and 3 may contradict each other (parent chooses the education of intolerance), but that is another discussion) The Internet was designed to be an educational tool - and has become an indispensable part of learning about today's world and, i would argue, it is impossible to be fully literate in today's world with having learnd the Internet and through the Internet about the world. So I would argue that the right to a multilingual Internet is a derivative of the fundamental right of education. I believe similar arguments can be made for development being a derivative rght - many of the other fundamental rights cannot be met without development. So while I believe rights spring from a source deeper then who is accountable for them, we do find that anyone who is a UN member is committed to the UDHR and is accountable for the fundamental rights by the declaration they 'signed.' And I believe that a strong argument can be made that they are also responsible for all of the rights that derive from these. While there is much room for argument about interpretations on what is truly necessary to meet the requirements of the fundamental rights, i think it is essential to press on the right to those things that are seen as necessary to meet the fundamental obligations. And while that fact that someone is accountable is not the source of the rights, it is good that some nations have agreed that they are responsible for at least this set of rights and should be held accountable not only for rights that are written (caveat, they should feed and stop torturing first) but for all those things that are rights by virtue of being necessary to enable the other rights. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 08:29:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:59:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48BE7D2F.7040500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080903123005.D3222E2F94@smtp3.electricembers.net> > If a national constitution contains proivisions to that effect, then > there is a right to education that should enable citizens to bring > action against the state. > In Germany, citizens can submit cases to the constitutional court if > they think their constitutional rights have been violated. Which brings us the question whether 'rights' can be spoken of before they are a part of a constitution or only after. All the fathers of world's great constitutions, and social and political movements behind them, would surely have begun speaking of rights much before they were enshrined. These constitutions will not have become possible if they hadn't. > I remember a long debate in Germany about a "right to work". Proves the above point. Many sensible people, and much progressive civil society, would have argued on the side of having this right, isn't it. We are also only proposing a dialogue on rights in relation to the Internet. And we are trying to develop a tentative canvas of such a dialogue. That is all. BTW 'right to work' is mentioned in Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much of UDHR is not enforceable in any court. Do you for that reason find no meaning in it? This wasn't > added to the constitution because it was said that the government is not > in a position to guarantee a sufficient number of jobs. I mention this > here as it seems to describe a similar situation. > jeanette Other countries would have thought otherwise and taken it as a right. In any case, civil society is mostly in the forefront of developing new 'rights' language and use it for social movements. They cant be 'behind' government laws in this regard. That will defeat its very purpose. In that sense 'right' as an available legal and constitutional entitlement can be different from the use of this term in struggles for social change waged by social movements and civil society. 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Sep 3 09:23:34 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:23:34 +0300 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080903132334.GF19842@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:23:45PM +0200, Avri Doria (avri at psg.com) wrote: > On 3 Sep 2008, at 13:07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights >> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't >> see who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones >> own language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly >> doesn't sound like a right to me. > While i agree that we have to be careful with devaluation of rights by > making the definition too broad, this would argue that there are no > rights without authority - the prerequisite of 'someone to be held > accountable' that is being offered in several people definitions. The party being held accountable does not have to be authority of any kind, nor does the requirement of accountability imply there has to be an authority of some kind. Murderers are accountable for their actions, whether or not there is a police or someone else enforcing it. > i believe we have rights, i would call them fundamental rights, on > account of our definition of what it means to be human within a society > and not because we have someone to hold accountable. Holding someone > accountable is secondary to the existence of a right not the > prerequisite for one. I am not sure what a right of a person would even mean if it didn't include, explicitly or implicitly, that someone else act or refrain from acting in some specific way. One person's rights are others' obligations. All rights, even right to life would be meaningless if you were the only person on Earth. It is not a right to be guaranteed eternal life, nor even that someone has to provide you means to survive, but an obligation on others not to kill you. > People had rights before the UDHR was adopted, > they just were not spelled out in that form. Sure. Nor would I restrict rights to legal rights, let alone require there has to be someone you can sue. But the point remains: if you have a right, there must be someone to whom it is an obligation. And that someone should be sufficiently concrete that, at least in theory, it can eventually be traced to individual people. A purely abstract "body politic" or the like doesn't cut it, IMHO. > There are rights that are fundamental because we are human and that is > how we have agreed to define being human, some of these rights have been > guaranteed, minus caveats like article 29, in the UDHR. Some (indeed rather many) of those do presume the existence of an authority, if not explicitly a state, and many even a certain level of wealth. I dislike including such rights as definitive to being human - as I see it, that would imply poverty (at least global such) would deprive people of their humanity as well. But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving interpretation that such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have an implicit "as long as we can afford it" -clause. And after all, the UDHR has become the authoritative definition of "human rights", so I won't argue with that, although I still consider such rights a lesser subcategory thereof. The point, however, extends to other, less fundamantal rights. If you have no idea who is thereby obligated to do something, they don't have much meaning. > As an argument, the right to Internet for all in all languages could > be interpreted as being a requirement by which a fundamental right - > education can be met. Yes. And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right, i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your own language, I ask: who should pay for it? -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 3 09:28:53 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:28:53 +0100 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> Message-ID: <48BE9115.5010805@wzb.eu> Avri Doria wrote: > - which i will state no opinion on due to possible conflicts of > interest as a consultant for the IGF secretariat> > > > On 3 Sep 2008, at 13:07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights >> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't >> see who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones >> own language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly >> doesn't sound like a right to me. > > > While i agree that we have to be careful with devaluation of rights by > making the definition too broad, this would argue that there are no > rights without authority - the prerequisite of 'someone to be held > accountable' that is being offered in several people definitions. There is of course the concept of natural rights which precede legal rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights My understanding is that such natural rights are even narrower than constitutional rights but, again, I am not an expert. As an aside, natural rights played a major role in the design of the continental version of intellectual property rights. Such a natural right of the author to his work doesn't exist in the american copyright law. So, it seems even natural rights need to be (legally) secured to keep their relevance. Regarding the relationship between rights and authority I think, yes, authority plays a major role on two dimensions. The one dimension would be protection against authority while the other would be securing rights by an authority. This all depends on one's understanding of the concept of right in the first place. jeanette > > i believe we have rights, i would call them fundamental rights, on > account of our definition of what it means to be human within a society > and not because we have someone to hold accountable. Holding someone > accountable is secondary to the existence of a right not the > prerequisite for one. People had rights before the UDHR was adopted, > they just were not spelled out in that form. > > There are rights that are fundamental because we are human and that is > how we have agreed to define being human, some of these rights have been > guaranteed, minus caveats like article 29, in the UDHR. There may also > be fundamental rights that have not yet been protected (e.g sexual > orientation, assistance for disability - though these may fall under the > general rubric of other status in the UDHR) > > There are also derivative rights - those things that are rights by > virtue of fundamental rights being dependent on those things. > > As an argument, the right to Internet for all in all languages could be > interpreted as being a requirement by which a fundamental right - > education can be met. > > > e.g. > > UDHR Article 26. > > (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, > at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education > shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made > generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to > all on the basis of merit. > > (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the > human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights > and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and > friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall > further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. > > (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education > that shall be given to their children. > > (2 and 3 may contradict each other (parent chooses the education of > intolerance), but that is another discussion) > > > The Internet was designed to be an educational tool - and has become an > indispensable part of learning about today's world and, i would argue, > it is impossible to be fully literate in today's world with having > learnd the Internet and through the Internet about the world. So I > would argue that the right to a multilingual Internet is a derivative of > the fundamental right of education. > > I believe similar arguments can be made for development being a > derivative rght - many of the other fundamental rights cannot be met > without development. > > So while I believe rights spring from a source deeper then who is > accountable for them, we do find that anyone who is a UN member is > committed to the UDHR and is accountable for the fundamental rights by > the declaration they 'signed.' And I believe that a strong argument can > be made that they are also responsible for all of the rights that derive > from these. > > While there is much room for argument about interpretations on what is > truly necessary to meet the requirements of the fundamental rights, i > think it is essential to press on the right to those things that are > seen as necessary to meet the fundamental obligations. And while that > fact that someone is accountable is not the source of the rights, it is > good that some nations have agreed that they are responsible for at > least this set of rights and should be held accountable not only for > rights that are written (caveat, they should feed and stop torturing > first) but for all those things that are rights by virtue of being > necessary to enable the other rights. > > > 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 3 09:35:54 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:35:54 -0300 Subject: SV: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84261F5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <48B9EADC.90FED92E@ix.netcom.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841E1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48BD06D2.4EBAE7E1@ix.netcom.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84261F5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48BE92BA.8060402@rits.org.br> Five per day? Why not four, or six? :) Just curious on the methodology to determine the maximum acceptable number of emails per person per day in our list. []s fraternos --c.a. Kleinwächter wrote: > Dear Jeff > > you promised some weeks ago to reduce your number of mails. 11 mails in 24 hours is quite a lot. While I appreciate some of your comments I would be thankful to have it reduced to five per day. > > Thanks a lot for your understanding. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] > Sendt: ti 02-09-2008 11:26 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > Emne: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > McTim and all, > > Behold, wonders are never predictable. Someday Google will > not be such a prolific spammer. And when that occurs, it will > be a wonder to behold! >:) But alas, I have great doubt that > such will occur in my lifetime. > > McTim wrote: > >> All, >> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>>>>> Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of >>>>>> positive >>>>>> rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the >>>>>> Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights >>>>>> like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones >>>>>> own language, which can underpin the >>>>> important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. >>> I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a >>> thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this >>> context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that >>> people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression, >>> association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures. >>> >> Agreed, I think we are really over-reaching here. >> >>> I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention >>> around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own >>> views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements >>> honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement >>> differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we >>> one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen. >> I am agreeing 2x in one mail with Milton, will wonders never cease? ;-) >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> mctim.blogspot.com >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 09:41:06 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (guru) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:11:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48BE7D2F.7040500@wzb.eu> References: <48BE7D2F.7040500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48BE93F2.3010506@itforchange.net> /"If a national constitution contains proivisions to that effect, then there is a right to education that should enable citizens to bring action against the state." (Jeanette) / In the same manner, the constitution can have a provision for a 'right to the internet', which would enable citizens to bring action against the state for its non provision - how is this proposition inherently contradictory with what you have said above? As for accountability, the process of establishing a right and that of having a process of enforcing it go hand in hand - there is no logic that the 'accountability structures' should be perfect before the right is accepted. In fact the very acceptance of a right is a force that would compel the state to accelerate measures to that would help it be accountable for its non provision. Just as the UDHR acts as a moral pressure on certain Governments /"I remember a long debate in Germany about a "right to work". This wasn't added to the constitution because it was said that the government is not in a position to guarantee a sufficient number of jobs. "(Jeanette) / Coincidentally, a recent landmark legislation in India has been the 'National Rural Employment Gurantee Act (NREGA)' which establishes a right on part of an unemployed person under certain contexts to get employment. This example certainly suggests that it would be difficult to argue that universally there cannot be any right to the internet' on the conceptually shallow grounds of 'enforceability', which is what Milton seems to be advocating. I suggest that the way forward would be to nuance this issue - under what circumstances and contexts should there be a collective accountability (Milton however much you detest the notion of the collective, the state, which is usually the body against which rights are enforced, is a representative of the collective of society within the political boundaries of a nation) for providing a right to the internet? And if the IGF is a fora for discussing and nuancing understanding and building common ground on IG issues, then it is the right place to discuss and debate this right. If we accept the right to education (and I am eager to hear anybody on this list assert that the right to education is invalid), it is illogical not to accept the right to the internet. As Avri has argued so persuasively, "The Internet was designed to be an educational tool - and has become an indispensable part of learning about today's world and, i would argue, it is impossible to be fully literate in today's world with having learnd the Internet and through the Internet about the world. So I would argue that the right to a multilingual Internet is a derivative of the fundamental right of education". Education is itself socially determined and it is difficult to argue that education can be meaningful today if it completely excludes the internet. (Even Milton has not been able to clearly deny the right to education). The basic goal of education is to prepare the learner for negotiating with his/her world and with the internet increasingly an integral part of the world of today and even more of tomorrow, keeping the learner away from internet (by not actively providing for those who cannot access it for reasons of resources, capacities etc) strongly reduces the meaning of education. This process need not cover only children but also adults who need such education. Just a PO - is it a coincidence that those arguing for the 'narrowness of rights' belong to social groups for who the access to the internet is a non-issue? whereas in societies with such inequities that significant sections of population would not have the resources or capacities to use the internet, such rights have great meaning for those populations. regards, Guru Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Parminder wrote: >> Jeannette >> >>> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights >>> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see >>> who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own >>> language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly >>> doesn't >>> sound like a right to me. >> >> How do you see 'right to education' then - a question that has come >> up here >> earlier? Do you or do you not believe in such a right? > > If a national constitution contains proivisions to that effect, then > there is a right to education that should enable citizens to bring > action against the state. > In Germany, citizens can submit cases to the constitutional court if > they think their constitutional rights have been violated. > I remember a long debate in Germany about a "right to work". This > wasn't added to the constitution because it was said that the > government is not in a position to guarantee a sufficient number of > jobs. I mention this here as it seems to describe a similar situation. > jeanette >> >> Who could be held accountable for lack of 'educational facilities'? >> In the >> same way that the state and other political formations can be held >> 'accountable' for lack of educational facilities, and thereby >> 'violating' >> ones right to education, these political entities can be held >> 'accountable' >> for other things if they are collectively found to be 'basic' to >> worthwhile >> human existence and such. >> On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop >> alternative >> conceptions to state centered notions of development, security, >> culture etc >> to move toward a more people-centric one. The problem with global >> Internet >> policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric >> notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one >> which is >> built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are >> trying >> to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one. >> (For instance the logic of 'security' used by many repressive >> countries in a >> state-centric manner in order to take control of the Internet may >> need to be >> countered by use of language of 'right to human security' on the >> Internet as >> it is being used in the offline world.) >> >> (1)There could be a global Internet policy regime that, as today, >> remains >> centered on existing hegemonies. >> (2) It could move towards a state-centric system which can break >> existing >> hegemonies, but as we all know it would be as bad, or worse. >> >> (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such a >> framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception >> of human >> rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions that >> serve >> those who are at present politically dominant will neither be >> legitimate not >> acceptable to the big majority. And we won't make any process. >> Accordingly, >> we will remain caught in situation (1) above or move towards(2). >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:38 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>> Cc: 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller' >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> it seems this is a debate we have to repeat again and again. I am no >>> expert on matters of right but I lean towards a narrow >>> interpretation of >>> the term right. It makes sense to me to protect its meaning against an >>> inflating use to avoid devaluation. >>> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights >>> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see >>> who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own >>> language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly >>> doesn't >>> sound like a right to me. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >>>>> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> McTim >>>> >>>> I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who >>> being >>>> from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than >>>> many >>>> others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can >>> proceed >>>> accordingly. >>>> >>>> BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its >>> equivalent >>>> in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken >>> of >>>> inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, >>>> Hyderabad's >>>> overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>>>> Cc: Milton L Mueller >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> pen. McTim, who >>>>>> now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. >>>>> I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong >>>>> rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >>>>> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> McTim >>>>> mctim.blogspot.com >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Wed Sep 3 09:52:49 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:22:49 +0530 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <48BE9115.5010805@wzb.eu> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> <48BE9115.5010805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48BE96B1.5020806@itforchange.net> /Regarding the relationship between rights and authority I think, yes, authority plays a major role on two dimensions. The one dimension would be protection against authority while the other would be securing rights by an authority. This all depends on one's understanding of the concept of right in the first place. (jeanette)/ Jeanette, Would you support the validity of both forms of rights (that some rights can be those which are secured through the 'authority' while others are secured agsinst it)? The right to education would be an example of the second one. regards Guru Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Avri Doria wrote: >> > - which i will state no opinion on due to possible conflicts of >> interest as a consultant for the IGF secretariat> >> >> >> On 3 Sep 2008, at 13:07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights >>> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't >>> see who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in >>> ones own language". The latter might be a political goal but it >>> certainly doesn't sound like a right to me. >> >> >> While i agree that we have to be careful with devaluation of rights >> by making the definition too broad, this would argue that there are >> no rights without authority - the prerequisite of 'someone to be >> held accountable' that is being offered in several people definitions. > > There is of course the concept of natural rights which precede legal > rights. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights > > My understanding is that such natural rights are even narrower than > constitutional rights but, again, I am not an expert. > > As an aside, natural rights played a major role in the design of the > continental version of intellectual property rights. Such a natural > right of the author to his work doesn't exist in the american > copyright law. So, it seems even natural rights need to be (legally) > secured to keep their relevance. > > Regarding the relationship between rights and authority I think, yes, > authority plays a major role on two dimensions. The one dimension > would be protection against authority while the other would be > securing rights by an authority. This all depends on one's > understanding of the concept of right in the first place. > jeanette > >> >> i believe we have rights, i would call them fundamental rights, on >> account of our definition of what it means to be human within a >> society and not because we have someone to hold accountable. Holding >> someone accountable is secondary to the existence of a right not the >> prerequisite for one. People had rights before the UDHR was adopted, >> they just were not spelled out in that form. >> >> There are rights that are fundamental because we are human and that >> is how we have agreed to define being human, some of these rights >> have been guaranteed, minus caveats like article 29, in the UDHR. >> There may also be fundamental rights that have not yet been protected >> (e.g sexual orientation, assistance for disability - though these may >> fall under the general rubric of other status in the UDHR) >> >> There are also derivative rights - those things that are rights by >> virtue of fundamental rights being dependent on those things. >> >> As an argument, the right to Internet for all in all languages could >> be interpreted as being a requirement by which a fundamental right - >> education can be met. >> >> >> e.g. >> >> UDHR Article 26. >> >> (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be >> free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary >> education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education >> shall be made generally available and higher education shall be >> equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. >> >> (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the >> human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human >> rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, >> tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious >> groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for >> the maintenance of peace. >> >> (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education >> that shall be given to their children. >> >> (2 and 3 may contradict each other (parent chooses the education >> of intolerance), but that is another discussion) >> >> >> The Internet was designed to be an educational tool - and has become >> an indispensable part of learning about today's world and, i would >> argue, it is impossible to be fully literate in today's world with >> having learnd the Internet and through the Internet about the world. >> So I would argue that the right to a multilingual Internet is a >> derivative of the fundamental right of education. >> >> I believe similar arguments can be made for development being a >> derivative rght - many of the other fundamental rights cannot be met >> without development. >> >> So while I believe rights spring from a source deeper then who is >> accountable for them, we do find that anyone who is a UN member is >> committed to the UDHR and is accountable for the fundamental rights >> by the declaration they 'signed.' And I believe that a strong >> argument can be made that they are also responsible for all of the >> rights that derive from these. >> >> While there is much room for argument about interpretations on what >> is truly necessary to meet the requirements of the fundamental >> rights, i think it is essential to press on the right to those things >> that are seen as necessary to meet the fundamental obligations. And >> while that fact that someone is accountable is not the source of the >> rights, it is good that some nations have agreed that they are >> responsible for at least this set of rights and should be held >> accountable not only for rights that are written (caveat, they should >> feed and stop torturing first) but for all those things that are >> rights by virtue of being necessary to enable the other rights. >> >> >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Sep 3 10:13:30 2008 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:13:30 +0200 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <48BE9115.5010805@wzb.eu> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> <48BE9115.5010805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4D4EB40D-D362-4248-A505-D42918E8FF91@psg.com> On 3 Sep 2008, at 15:28, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > My understanding is that such natural rights are even narrower than > constitutional rights but, again, a derivation from first principles. i think it can be argued that all constitutional rights can be derived from natural rights. > I am not an expert. not sure i know what that means. i think that in this issue we are exploring conflicting concepts and one's degree of expertise is secondary. > > > As an aside, natural rights played a major role in the design of the > continental version of intellectual property rights. Such a natural > right of the author to his work doesn't exist in the american > copyright law. So, it seems even natural rights need to be (legally) > secured to keep their relevance. relevance is a funny word. certainly if we make a tight binding of a right and its enforceability, then its being written into law becomes a measure of relevance. but i believe that if something it is a right, it is one whether there is an enforcement capability or not. law and its enforcement occupy a certain rung on a scale of justice, but not the only rung, and one cannot argue that the only things that are right are those that are legal. it is a safe place to hang an argument because law is a measure of what we have all agreed to, but it is not the measure of right or the measure of how far we have gotten in our agreements on what is right. fortunately with instruments like th UDHR, we have a basis on which to argue a full panoply orf rights. wheether they have all been enshrined in natural constitutions of laws yet, they are there by reference due to one agreements in becoming members of the UN. it is empty, for example, to ague that there is no right to education even if the government of a particular country has not law to provide it as that country - if a UN member - has already committed itself to supplying it. lkewise with freedom of expression and the right to work and to work for equal pay. Just because countries have not yet enshrined these rights into law, they have agreed to them. they may not be enforceable yet, but they are both derivative of natural rights and fundamental human rights. > > > Regarding the relationship between rights and authority I think, > yes, authority plays a major role on two dimensions. The one > dimension would be protection against authority while the other > would be securing rights by an authority. This all depends on one's > understanding of the concept of right in the first place. I agree it plays a role, what I am arguing is that it is not a necessary condition for rights to exist. I would argue in fact that rights have priority over authority and authority that is in contravention to rights is not fully legitimate as authority. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 2 14:50:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:50:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for References: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> <8017791e0809030128k501bfe88sc7be6c6d030e1c89@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48BD8AF3.A7433DB1@ix.netcom.com> Kabani and all, Happy to assist. Cairo is in Egypt. This fellow was an Egyption citizen. Ergo as there are many such occurances in Egypt such as this these days, perhaps selecting another city would be more wise, and safe for participants, especially for potential participants of western or Dubai decent. I would have thought such would be self evident. I can see now by your query, I was horribly mistaken. I hope now though I have corrected that horrible mistake. Kabani wrote: > All, Thanks for the information Good or part of Dubai Government and > Court. Please guides us What's this got to do with the Cairo meeting? > regards > > 2008/9/2 Jeffrey A. Williams > > All, > > Perhaps the upcoming Cairo meeting should be moved? > > See: > September 1, 2008) > A Dubai court has sentenced a man who worked as a secretary > for a United > > Nations employee to three months in jail for accessing a UN > employee's > email account, stealing her credit card information and > sending her > threatening messages from another of her email accounts he > broke into. > The man, who is Egyptian, will be deported once he completes > his > sentence. > http://ww > .gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10241859.html > > As a side note: I really wish my countries DOJ and > affiliated state > organizations were as concerned as it appears the Dubai > court was > here. Perhaps their jurisprudence has eclipsed my own > countries? > I hope not... But certainly it seems in this case, they > have. >:( As > a victim of IDtheft myself, I can at least personally attest > to that > fact, > sad on several levels, to say... >:( > > Semper fi, > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > 1947] > ===== > ========================================================= > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > Visit: www.kabani.co.uk > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 2 15:12:53 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:12:53 -0700 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> <48BE9115.5010805@wzb.eu> <4D4EB40D-D362-4248-A505-D42918E8FF91@psg.com> Message-ID: <48BD9035.8141FBAD@ix.netcom.com> Avri and all, I get the impression that we are trying to parse too finly here. An "Internet Bill of Rights" IS a political statement/document, if and when it has been compleated. It also is not a new idea or concept as some here are very aware. What's important is IMO, what is enforcable as a "Right" stated in such a protential document such as an "Internet Bill of Rights" that has a direct impact to what the Internet IS, or may become. Ergo natural "Rights" are a set of "Rights" that are not related to the Internet or it's use. Avri Doria wrote: > On 3 Sep 2008, at 15:28, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > My understanding is that such natural rights are even narrower than > > constitutional rights but, again, > > a derivation from first principles. i think it can be argued that all > constitutional rights can be derived from natural rights. > > > I am not an expert. > > not sure i know what that means. i think that in this issue we are > exploring conflicting concepts and one's degree of expertise is > secondary. > > > > > > > As an aside, natural rights played a major role in the design of the > > continental version of intellectual property rights. Such a natural > > right of the author to his work doesn't exist in the american > > copyright law. So, it seems even natural rights need to be (legally) > > secured to keep their relevance. > > relevance is a funny word. certainly if we make a tight binding of a > right and its enforceability, then its being written into law becomes > a measure of relevance. > > but i believe that if something it is a right, it is one whether there > is an enforcement capability or not. law and its enforcement occupy a > certain rung on a scale of justice, but not the only rung, and one > cannot argue that the only things that are right are those that are > legal. it is a safe place to hang an argument because law is a > measure of what we have all agreed to, but it is not the measure of > right or the measure of how far we have gotten in our agreements on > what is right. > > fortunately with instruments like th UDHR, we have a basis on which to > argue a full panoply orf rights. wheether they have all been > enshrined in natural constitutions of laws yet, they are there by > reference due to one agreements in becoming members of the UN. > > it is empty, for example, to ague that there is no right to education > even if the government of a particular country has not law to provide > it as that country - if a UN member - has already committed itself to > supplying it. lkewise with freedom of expression and the right to > work and to work for equal pay. Just because countries have not yet > enshrined these rights into law, they have agreed to them. they may > not be enforceable yet, but they are both derivative of natural rights > and fundamental human rights. > > > > > > > Regarding the relationship between rights and authority I think, > > yes, authority plays a major role on two dimensions. The one > > dimension would be protection against authority while the other > > would be securing rights by an authority. This all depends on one's > > understanding of the concept of right in the first place. > > I agree it plays a role, what I am arguing is that it is not a > necessary condition for rights to exist. I would argue in fact that > rights have priority over authority and authority that is in > contravention to rights is not fully legitimate as authority. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Sep 3 15:11:55 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:11:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <48BC8302.58E16D1E@ix.netcom.com> References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> <48BC8302.58E16D1E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <4eTfiTE7FuvIFAUz@perry.co.uk> In message <48BC8302.58E16D1E at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:04:18 on Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >> A town (somewhere in the world, not in necessarily Texas) will close >> down a local business if it's illegal either: >> >> 1) because (as you point out) any business might be illegal without some >> sort of licence according to that town's rules or > > Towns or states, or federal I believe you mean. I don't care how far up the food chain they made the rule, as long as they are also the people who enforce it. >> 2) because (and this was my original point) despite the fact that any >> business *can* be started without a licence in that town [true in UK for >> example], some sorts of business are nevertheless illegal because of >> what they trade in. > > Absolutely right but not complete. 2b.) And if that "Trade" has >global reach than in accordance to USTR trade regulations, that >business would be subject to those rules/regulations/trade >agreements/extranious laws as well lets not forget. If that's a bid for USA rules to work extra-territorially, you are getting into tricky ground. Although on another list I'm told that Florida courts won't enforce a European judgement against [telephone] spammers based there (and operating in contravention to European law), so it doesn't seem to be much of a two-way street. >> >Hosting as to local, again depends as to legality of content >> >available, on the country and state/province in which the actual >> >hosting is. >> >> Good, we agree. So enforce it there first, please. > > Not entirely, but mostly. Hosting only deals with location of a >DN based business, not it's reach on a global scale. So enforcment >is both internal to a US state, and a national government as such >applies to existing trade agreements that may or clearly do apply, >unless that DN based business is technically restricted in such a way, >such as an extrAnet or IntrAnet that has no out of hosting country >ability. I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing that. The bottom line is this: if the business is illegal under some form of local (eg USA) law, then the first thing to do is have the local enforcers move in. If they can't enforce their own law in their own territory, then involving extra-territorial measures is unlikely to help. -- 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 hananeb at diplomacy.edu Wed Sep 3 15:45:20 2008 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <8A71806366794E89BD560C9862D79C42@HANANEPC> Parminder and all, Indeed, my suggestion of the right of a multilingual Internet is purely reflecting the concern of a minority of Internet users who are not able to benefit fully of what Internet can offer. The reason lies behind the fact that there is a clear lack of reliable online content in languages like Arabic. The UNESCO is working on many projects to promote this concept and other organizations who are obviously concerned. The reason why I think a multilingual Internet might be included as right (if we all agree) is to engage as many parties or stakeholders in making this concept a reality. As a native Arabic speaker using Internet for at least 12 hours a day, I mostly rely on English online content for the simple reason that content in Arabic is scarce (at least for the subjects I am interested in). This right falls as well under two major themes of IGF: diversity and access. I think it's feasible to include a multilingual Internet as an inherent right. Hanane Boujemi IG Research Coordinator and Supervisor Internet Governance Projects DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parminder" To: ; "'McTim'" Cc: "'Milton L Mueller'" Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:49 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim > > > I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who > being > from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than many > others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can > proceed > accordingly. > > BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its > equivalent > in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken of > inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, Hyderabad's > overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept. > > Parminder > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Cc: Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder >> wrote: >> pen. McTim, who >> > now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. >> >> I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong >> rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> mctim.blogspot.com >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 3 17:56:58 2008 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:56:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for In-Reply-To: <48BD8AF3.A7433DB1@ix.netcom.com> References: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> <8017791e0809030128k501bfe88sc7be6c6d030e1c89@mail.gmail.com> <48BD8AF3.A7433DB1@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Dear Jeffrey Are we to take this seriously???? An Egyptian gets jailed in Dubai, therefore it is no longer safe for anyone to go to Egypt??? What are they going to do? Mass-retaliate for one of their own being jailed for committing a crime? Boy, if that became fashionable - ergo - we should just all - regardless of our decent [sic] stay home for fear of being arrested in reprisal for the arrest somewhere in the world of a citizen of a country we might have been considering going to! Regards, Rui On 02/09/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Kabani and all, > > Happy to assist. Cairo is in Egypt. This fellow was an Egyption > citizen. Ergo as there are many such occurances in Egypt such > as this these days, perhaps selecting another city would be more > wise, and safe for participants, especially for potential participants > of western or Dubai decent. I would have thought such would > be self evident. I can see now by your query, I was horribly mistaken. > I hope now though I have corrected that horrible mistake. > > Kabani wrote: > > > All, Thanks for the information Good or part of Dubai Government and > > Court. Please guides us What's this got to do with the Cairo meeting? > > regards > > > > 2008/9/2 Jeffrey A. Williams > > > > All, > > > > Perhaps the upcoming Cairo meeting should be moved? > > > > See: > > September 1, 2008) > > A Dubai court has sentenced a man who worked as a secretary > > for a United > > > > Nations employee to three months in jail for accessing a UN > > employee's > > email account, stealing her credit card information and > > sending her > > threatening messages from another of her email accounts he > > broke into. > > The man, who is Egyptian, will be deported once he completes > > his > > sentence. > > http://ww > > .gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10241859.html > > > > As a side note: I really wish my countries DOJ and > > affiliated state > > organizations were as concerned as it appears the Dubai > > court was > > here. Perhaps their jurisprudence has eclipsed my own > > countries? > > I hope not... But certainly it seems in this case, they > > have. >:( As > > a victim of IDtheft myself, I can at least personally attest > > to that > > fact, > > sad on several levels, to say... >:( > > > > Semper fi, > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > > what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > > burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > > by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > > 1947] > > ===== > > ========================================================= > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > > security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Visit: www.kabani.co.uk > > > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 2 20:42:20 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:42:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> <48BC8302.58E16D1E@ix.netcom.com> <4eTfiTE7FuvIFAUz@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <48BDDD6B.40D243EC@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48BC8302.58E16D1E at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:04:18 on Mon, 1 Sep > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > > >> A town (somewhere in the world, not in necessarily Texas) will close > >> down a local business if it's illegal either: > >> > >> 1) because (as you point out) any business might be illegal without some > >> sort of licence according to that town's rules or > > > > Towns or states, or federal I believe you mean. > > I don't care how far up the food chain they made the rule, as long as > they are also the people who enforce it. They are usually, unless the rules are actually regulations, than other regulators, whom may be private contractors, are the enforcers. > > > >> 2) because (and this was my original point) despite the fact that any > >> business *can* be started without a licence in that town [true in UK for > >> example], some sorts of business are nevertheless illegal because of > >> what they trade in. > > > > Absolutely right but not complete. 2b.) And if that "Trade" has > >global reach than in accordance to USTR trade regulations, that > >business would be subject to those rules/regulations/trade > >agreements/extranious laws as well lets not forget. > > If that's a bid for USA rules to work extra-territorially, you are > getting into tricky ground. Although on another list I'm told that > Florida courts won't enforce a European judgement against [telephone] > spammers based there (and operating in contravention to European law), > so it doesn't seem to be much of a two-way street. No tricky ground what so ever. Read the GATT or NAFTA trade agreements for refrence. That should take you about 5 or 6 days each. Understanding them takes a bit longer. Certainly your correct at times, too often IMO, there is no two way street. > > > >> >Hosting as to local, again depends as to legality of content > >> >available, on the country and state/province in which the actual > >> >hosting is. > >> > >> Good, we agree. So enforce it there first, please. > > > > Not entirely, but mostly. Hosting only deals with location of a > >DN based business, not it's reach on a global scale. So enforcment > >is both internal to a US state, and a national government as such > >applies to existing trade agreements that may or clearly do apply, > >unless that DN based business is technically restricted in such a way, > >such as an extrAnet or IntrAnet that has no out of hosting country > >ability. > > I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing that. The bottom line is this: if > the business is illegal under some form of local (eg USA) law, then the > first thing to do is have the local enforcers move in. If they can't > enforce their own law in their own territory, then involving > extra-territorial measures is unlikely to help. I sort of figured you would have a bit of a difficult time parsing the difference in where a DN is hosted and the global reach of same. I tankfully don't suffer from that difficulty. Nor do most government officials. All countries, provinces/states, or local communities have continuing problems enforcing their reletive rules/laws/regulations. But if the offender is persistant and insistant enough, enforcment will follow in some form or another. > > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 3 00:27:06 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:27:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <8A71806366794E89BD560C9862D79C42@HANANEPC> Message-ID: <48BE1219.FC3CDC29@ix.netcom.com> Hanane and all, Again I look forward to the day when the Internet is available in all languages including latin and Sanskrit. I also look forward to the day that the countries who's native language is not well represented on the Internet pony up the funds/funding to make it happen. Many arabic countries for instance have avaliable plenty of funds to make it happen in their countries where various arabic languages are their native language. Yet I have not seen or read of any to date that have announced or are engaged in actually doing much about it. Same is true for EU nations and their native language. ICANN has "Approved" IDN gTLD's at the recent Paris meeting. Now we shall see when, whom, and how those nations take advantage of this and submit applications for their own IDN gTLD and pay for the development of it themselves. It's a cinch that the US isn't going to fund such efforts, nor should it. We're broke and in debt! >:( Hanane Boujemi wrote: > Parminder and all, > > Indeed, my suggestion of the right of a multilingual Internet is purely > reflecting the concern of a minority of Internet users who are not able to > benefit fully of what Internet can offer. The reason lies behind the fact > that there is a clear lack of reliable online content in languages like > Arabic. The UNESCO is working on many projects to promote this concept and > other organizations who are obviously concerned. > > The reason why I think a multilingual Internet might be included as right > (if we all agree) is to engage as many parties or stakeholders in making > this concept a reality. > > As a native Arabic speaker using Internet for at least 12 hours a day, I > mostly rely on English online content for the simple reason that content in > Arabic is scarce (at least for the subjects I am interested in). > > This right falls as well under two major themes of IGF: diversity and > access. I think it's feasible to include a multilingual Internet as an > inherent right. > > Hanane Boujemi > IG Research Coordinator and Supervisor > Internet Governance Projects > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Parminder" > To: ; "'McTim'" > Cc: "'Milton L Mueller'" > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:49 PM > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in > >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > > > > > > I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who > > being > > from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than many > > others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can > > proceed > > accordingly. > > > > BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its > > equivalent > > in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken of > > inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, Hyderabad's > > overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > >> Cc: Milton L Mueller > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder > >> wrote: > >> pen. McTim, who > >> > now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. > >> > >> I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong > >> rhetoric. This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in > >> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far". > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> mctim.blogspot.com > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 3 23:17:13 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:17:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809031151.m83Bow6G000659@mx1.syr.edu> References: <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <200809031151.m83Bow6G000659@mx1.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E618@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop > alternative conceptions to state centered notions of development, > security, culture etc > to move toward a more people-centric one. Interesting response, P. > The problem with global Internet > policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric > notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one which is > built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are > trying to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one. Agreed. But my main objection to your rights language, especially in the context of the UN system, is that it drags us into the muck of state-centric positive rights, based on a view of the UN system as a gigantic social welfarist regime that can somehow deliver anything and everything to anyone who demands it. The gap between that conception and reality of the UN system of course is unbearable. > (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such a > framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception of > human rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions > that serve those who are at present politically dominant will neither be To me, "people-centered" means individual rights because the individual is the one constant across nations, cultures, etc. I don't think concepts of basic, narrow but fundamental rights "serve those who are at present politically dominant" -- else why would states from Russia to the US be so eagerly and with impunity violating 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 3 23:21:40 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:21:40 -0400 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E619@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > i believe we have rights, i would call them fundamental rights, on > account of our definition of what it means to be human within a > society and not because we have someone to hold accountable. Holding > someone accountable is secondary to the existence of a right not the > prerequisite for one. People had rights before the UDHR was adopted, > they just were not spelled out in that form. Ah, a natural rights person. I agree, but your claim can only be true of negative "natural" rights, not of positive ones. You can't claim a right to education, for example, without an authoritative and enforceable claim to the tax moneys of your neighbors and to the labor of the teachers. I don't think you can say that such a "right" exists without an authority. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 4 00:03:57 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:03:57 -0400 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <20080903132334.GF19842@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> <20080903132334.GF19842@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E61A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving interpretation that > such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have an implicit > "as long as we can afford it" -clause. ;-) I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. ALAWCAI. If Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate. One could consider Article 29 states' "ALAWCAI clause" for freedom of expression. > And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet > designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever > languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right, > i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your > own language, I ask: who should pay for it? Indeed. Ask not only who should pay for it -- because it's easy to volunteer someone else to pay for my benefits -- but ask also whether making such a demand is the best way to get such content in one's own language produced? Are there not more effective policy options? Is there a danger that this kind of demand will act as a substitute for those more effective options? (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality cases I would actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For example, if voting is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an international institution produces authoritative documents, then I think individuals in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or translations of laws/policies be made available to them. Even if it does cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to political representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. But there is still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Thu Sep 4 00:03:54 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:33:54 +0530 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E619@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <309620FB-A7D0-4BBB-9845-2FDBB4A6FC88@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E619@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BF5E2A.8000005@itforchange.net> Milton, the distinction you make between 'negative' and 'positive' rights based on the 'need for funding and authority for its enforcement' is logically flawed. The right to FOE requires a strong state/police/army to protect it.Without a functional army/police, many of the negative rights have no meaning (would you like to live in Afghanistan or Sudan?). The largest parts of government budgets in most countries is for defence/interior ministries, which is a must for protecting 'negative' rights. All rights have a cost for their being available... and even those of the right to life and liberty are no exception. btw, would like to know if you do accept the right to education :-) Guru Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> i believe we have rights, i would call them fundamental rights, on >> account of our definition of what it means to be human within a >> society and not because we have someone to hold accountable. Holding >> someone accountable is secondary to the existence of a right not the >> prerequisite for one. People had rights before the UDHR was adopted, >> they just were not spelled out in that form. >> > > Ah, a natural rights person. I agree, but your claim can only be true of > negative "natural" rights, not of positive ones. You can't claim a right > to education, for example, without an authoritative and enforceable > claim to the tax moneys of your neighbors and to the labor of the > teachers. I don't think you can say that such a "right" exists without > an authority. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 4 00:12:03 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:12:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809031230.m83CU5Wi010476@mx1.syr.edu> References: <48BE7D2F.7040500@wzb.eu> <200809031230.m83CU5Wi010476@mx1.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E61B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > BTW 'right to work' is mentioned in Universal Declaration of Human > Rights. Much of UDHR is not enforceable in any court. Do you for that > reason find no meaning in it? In the U.S., "right to work" means you don't have to join a union to work at an employer with a collective bargaining agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law If the UDHR means a right to have a job, then Yes, to me it is quite meaningless. The enshrinement of that claim as a right in an international document does not create jobs, it does not provide anyone with the budgetary wherewithal to reduce unemployment or support the unemployed, it does not tell you what wage you get for your labor, etc. etc.... What is wrong with just saying, "public policy should maximize productive employment?" or "unemployment is bad and economic policy makers should take care to avoid it"? Why call this a right? But this gives me a great idea. Since I have an internationally guaranteed right to a job and Parminder supports that, when in India I will insist on my right to work for ITforChange as a policy analyst. You wouldn't dare refuse, and once hired you couldn't fire me either, it would violate my right. ;-) Seriously, though, I do understand what you are trying to say, P. You are saying that if we valorize certain social benefits as "rights" we encourage people to strive to find ways to deliver them. And I am warning you that such a tactic incurs costs, and that one can define and encourage people to achieve certain benefits without necessarily calling them rights. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 4 00:44:36 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:44:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <8A71806366794E89BD560C9862D79C42@HANANEPC> References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <8A71806366794E89BD560C9862D79C42@HANANEPC> Message-ID: Hello, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Hanane Boujemi wrote: > > Parminder and all, > > Indeed, my suggestion of the right of a multilingual Internet is purely > reflecting the concern of a minority of Internet users who are not able to > benefit fully of what Internet can offer. minority or majority? The reason lies behind the fact > that there is a clear lack of reliable online content in languages like > Arabic. The UNESCO is working on many projects to promote this concept and > other organizations who are obviously concerned. perhaps UNESCO is "working" on it, could you point me to tangible results? The results I see from here are done largely by corporations, including M$ applications and OS and online content translators: (http://www.google.com/transconsole/giyl/check/status) http://www.google.com/translate_t# http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ etc., with some notable achievements done by CS/academia (http://translate.org.za/), and ICANNs work on IDNs. > > The reason why I think a multilingual Internet might be included as right > (if we all agree) which we seemingly don't, which was Milton's point. is to engage as many parties or stakeholders in making > this concept a reality. That's all well and good, a laudable goal. However, if asking for it a "right" turns off CS ppl like me, Milton and JH, imagine what it would look like to gov't types? > > As a native Arabic speaker using Internet for at least 12 hours a day, I > mostly rely on English online content for the simple reason that content in > Arabic is scarce (at least for the subjects I am interested in). I submit that it's up to Arabic speakers to engage in projects to change this, or rely on the corporates to do it, for example, your sentence above translated (free) by http://www.systran.co.uk/arabic-english-translation/free-arabic-translation.htm reads: كالمتحدث أهليّ طبيعيّ عربيّة يستعمل إنترنت ل على الأقلّ 12 [هوور ا دي], أنا في الأغلب اعتمدت على محتوى [إنغليش] متوفّر على شبكة الإنترنات للسبب بسيطة أنّ محتوى [إينربيك] نادر (على الأقلّ لالموضوع أنا راغبة داخل). Now, this may be an awful translation, but at least it is something. > > This right falls as well under two major themes of IGF: diversity and > access. I think it's feasible to include a multilingual Internet as an > inherent right. > I think it's an "ability" that uses users should have, but trying to enshrine it in a "right" is a very big ask. As mentioned upthread, "who is going to pay for this"? -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 4 01:37:56 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:07:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All, A couple of things before I propose some changes to the part of the 'rights' text which has attracted some controversy. The present exercise of proposing a rights discourse in the IGF is being done with a clear purpose in mind, and not just as an academic pursuit. The purpose is to make progress towards public interest based IG and internet policy (which is the avowed objective of the IGC), in which space there is a kind of stalemate at present. One view, expressed in our recent statement for September consultations, is that we attempt to develop an anchor a rights-based discourse, and thereby probably a rights-based framework in the IGF, which could become the basis of global Internet policy regime. I think we are all agreed up to this point, which is, more or less, the implication I draw from our stated statement. (any dissent may please be registered.) Now, my humble submission is that one must understand and appreciate that such a rights-based discourse/framework for IG cannot be based only on FoE and the right to privacy. If it has to have truly global legitimacy it has to accept a greater width of rights discourse as articulated in various parts of the world, by different people. And we all know that IG is in substantial measure indeed global, or at least we want to keep it that way, and therefore if we as a part of global civil society want to anchor a rights discourse we need to be more appreciative of other people's concern, which incidentally are a big majority. Else we cannot move on. We cannot just go with a west-centred notions of a rights-discourse. In fact, if we start engaging mutually, as we have seen in some recent emails on this list, we can see that we can come close, or close enough, because at the bottom I have this strong conviction that our concerns and values are largely shared. In interest of not jeopardizing one of the few attempts we have ever made to agree on substantive issues on this list, I propose that in the controversial part of the text, the parts on positive rights and collective rights vis a vis the Internet be written as something we are only visiting and exploring. Accordingly, we can amend "Conceptions of rights and the internet also extend to the area of positive rights.." to "Conceptions of rights and the internet *may* also extend to the area of positive rights..". So that the part "Freedom of expression and openness of the internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important internet right. Conceptions of rights and the internet also extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a possible right to the internet is being articulated by some, and to collective rights such as those of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." Reads as "Freedom of expression and openness of the internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important internet right. Conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a possible right to the internet is being articulated by some, and to collective rights such as those of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." Parminder The full draft, if the above change is made, will now read as IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet Freedom of expression and openness of the internet are underpinned by recognized basic human rights. Privacy in the digital space is increasingly understood as a very important internet right. Conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive rights - for instance in the area of access, where a possible right to the internet is being articulated by some, and to collective rights such as those of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to know, access to information and the right to share information, including perhaps freedom of expression itself. The right to public information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where digitized information is publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Many other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the shaping of internet policies that best serve public interests in these areas. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, much more globalized and digitized, context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means . Corporations are able to extend their digital tentacles of control into people's houses and their personal devices, in a manner as yet unsuspected by consumers. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. While the 'right to property' has conventionally been considered of considerable importance, its applicability and mutations in the the digital environment, particularly in the form of Intellectual Property rights, is current being widely contested. In fact, this issue is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR and the development of the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles of neutrality and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF, Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 3 03:46:56 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:46:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Dubai Court Gives Man Three Months in Jail for References: <48BC956F.7FCDD475@ix.netcom.com> <8017791e0809030128k501bfe88sc7be6c6d030e1c89@mail.gmail.com> <48BD8AF3.A7433DB1@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48BE40F0.E2721559@ix.netcom.com> Rui and all, I didn't say it isn't safe for ANYONE to go to Egypt. I asserted that it would be a better idea to hold the Cairo meeting in a MORE safe local as a result of this and of course many other not mentioned reasons. Of course if you are a native of the Region, it would be safe for most people in that region, with the possible exception of folks from Dubai and of course westerners for other reasons... Rui Correia wrote: > Dear Jeffrey > > Are we to take this seriously???? > > An Egyptian gets jailed in Dubai, therefore it is no longer safe for > anyone to go to Egypt??? What are they going to do? Mass-retaliate for > one of their own being jailed for committing a crime? Boy, if that > became fashionable - ergo - we should just all - regardless of our > decent [sic] stay home for fear of being arrested in reprisal for the > arrest somewhere in the world of a citizen of a country we might have > been considering going to! > > Regards, > > Rui > > On 02/09/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Kabani and all, > > > > Happy to assist. Cairo is in Egypt. This fellow was an Egyption > > citizen. Ergo as there are many such occurances in Egypt such > > as this these days, perhaps selecting another city would be more > > wise, and safe for participants, especially for potential participants > > of western or Dubai decent. I would have thought such would > > be self evident. I can see now by your query, I was horribly mistaken. > > I hope now though I have corrected that horrible mistake. > > > > Kabani wrote: > > > > > All, Thanks for the information Good or part of Dubai Government and > > > Court. Please guides us What's this got to do with the Cairo meeting? > > > regards > > > > > > 2008/9/2 Jeffrey A. Williams > > > > > > All, > > > > > > Perhaps the upcoming Cairo meeting should be moved? > > > > > > See: > > > September 1, 2008) > > > A Dubai court has sentenced a man who worked as a secretary > > > for a United > > > > > > Nations employee to three months in jail for accessing a UN > > > employee's > > > email account, stealing her credit card information and > > > sending her > > > threatening messages from another of her email accounts he > > > broke into. > > > The man, who is Egyptian, will be deported once he completes > > > his > > > sentence. > > > http://ww > > > .gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10241859.html > > > > > > As a side note: I really wish my countries DOJ and > > > affiliated state > > > organizations were as concerned as it appears the Dubai > > > court was > > > here. Perhaps their jurisprudence has eclipsed my own > > > countries? > > > I hope not... But certainly it seems in this case, they > > > have. >:( As > > > a victim of IDtheft myself, I can at least personally attest > > > to that > > > fact, > > > sad on several levels, to say... >:( > > > > > > Semper fi, > > > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > > > what is > > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > > > burden, B; > > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > > > by > > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > > > 1947] > > > ===== > > > ========================================================= > > > Updated 1/26/04 > > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > > > security IDNS. > > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Visit: www.kabani.co.uk > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 4 02:52:32 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:22:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E618@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080904065243.BC97767819@smtp1.electricembers.net> > > On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop > > alternative conceptions to state centered notions of development, > > security, culture etc > > to move toward a more people-centric one. > > Interesting response, P. Thanks. As a proof that I mean this seriously I must mention that I accepted the invitation to China government sponsored workshop at IGF Rio on 'cyber-security' and spoke about articulating a people centric human security approach to cyber-security rather than a state-centric one. Same is true in case of cultural rights. Much of the strongest, and bloodiest, struggles for cultural rights have been waged by cultural-minority groups against the states. Obviously in such cases cultural rights can no way be considered state centric. I can mention similar examples with RtD, but would not go into it now. > Agreed. But my main objection to your rights language, especially in the > context of the UN system, is that it drags us into the muck of > state-centric positive rights, based on a view of the UN system as a > gigantic social welfarist regime that can somehow deliver anything and > everything to anyone who demands it. The gap between that conception and > reality of the UN system of course is unbearable. One, as argued above our positive rights conceptions are not any more state centric than are negative rights conceptions. Two, UN system, or any other global polity will need to be much more welfarist matching the growing tentacles of globalization that often limit national level policy options, than it is at present. Else, globalization will simply crash and fail. It cannot be built over such huge equities as obtains globally, and further entrench and widen these inequities. Thirdly, we are not just speaking of UN systems here but of a possibly new global political system for IG, beyond inter-governmental systems, and I know we agree on this. > To me, "people-centered" means individual rights because the individual > is the one constant across nations, cultures, etc. It is here that we disagree. Extreme individualisation as the basic and natural human condition is a modern western concept and not in any way obviously the 'right' or the best one. While human dignity cohering in each person separately remains uniformly important, many cultures have a more collectivist thinking that you may have. As I proposed earlier you need to live with an ethnic minority group and listen to them at length to get convinced that such can be a 'natural and voluntary' condition of some people's living. I don't think > concepts of basic, narrow but fundamental rights "serve those who are at > present politically dominant" -- else why would states from Russia to > the US be so eagerly and with impunity violating them? I mean this in terms of divisions within global civil society, and dominances within global civil society. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:47 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop > > alternative conceptions to state centered notions of development, > > security, culture etc > > to move toward a more people-centric one. > > Interesting response, P. > > > The problem with global Internet > > policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric > > notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one which > is > > built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are > > trying to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one. > > Agreed. But my main objection to your rights language, especially in the > context of the UN system, is that it drags us into the muck of > state-centric positive rights, based on a view of the UN system as a > gigantic social welfarist regime that can somehow deliver anything and > everything to anyone who demands it. The gap between that conception and > reality of the UN system of course is unbearable. > > > (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such > a > > framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception of > > human rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions > > that serve those who are at present politically dominant will neither > be > > To me, "people-centered" means individual rights because the individual > is the one constant across nations, cultures, etc. I don't think > concepts of basic, narrow but fundamental rights "serve those who are at > present politically dominant" -- else why would states from Russia to > the US be so eagerly and with impunity violating them? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 3 04:50:37 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:50:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] ISO Relevance Questioned After OOXML Appeals Fail Message-ID: <48BE4FDC.A209B73C@ix.netcom.com> All, In relevance to International standards. See: An Australian PCWorld piece that begins "Countries whose http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/15/1749252&tid=109 appeals were dismissed regarding the ISO/IEC's approval of Microsoft's OOXML as an international standard are http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1115688493;fp;;fpid;;pf;1 questioning the judgment and relevance of the ISO/IEC and the standards they approve. In a statement made at the Congresso Internacional Sociedade e Governo Electronico (CONSEGI) 2008 conference, representatives from three of the four countries that appealed against an April 1 vote to approve OOXML as a standard said they are'no longer confident' in the ability of both the International Organization forStandardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission to be vendor-neutral and open when it comes to setting technology standards." Here is the http://www.raffee.co.za/post/47974926/consegi-declaration statement signed by South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Cuba. The countries won't pursue further opposition to OOXML. What more interesting is the the US is curiously not amongst those that find ISO less than vendor-neutral. I guess MS lobbying $$ are responsible for that. Seems maybe ISO officials also wern't amune to accepting gratuities for their vote either... Well as we all know or should know, $$ is the mothers milk of decision making, eh? Principals be damed... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 02:58:31 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:58:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080902073403.DCD9CE2FAA@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080901155540.84C0DA6C88@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080902073403.DCD9CE2FAA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Parminder wrote: > The document has also been put on Google docs. Can you send the link please? All those who want to edit it > please let me or Ian know. Thanks. Parminder > I want, as I think, as usual, the rhetoric is too strong. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 4 03:08:58 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:38:58 +0530 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E61A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080904070912.855876781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. ALAWCAI. If > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate. Thanks again. Accordingly, I have suggested a tentative 'may' to be added in the part on positive and collective rights. Hope you can agree to this. As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) clause, you know that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even to the negative ones. You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. Within this group we have provisions in the charter that can be used to 'limit' what may be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain kinds of postings we can limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list participant altogether. We are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a word you hate) cannot afford it, right. Do you not agree with this ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list? In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, about which I ma getting many complaints, it may be found necessary collectively (again) to revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list, because we may have discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to 'afford' if we have to remain effective etc. > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality cases I would > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For example, if voting > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an international > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think individuals > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. Even if it does > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to political > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. But there is > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist) You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to above, we are really far away form each other in our views. No one advocates rights in manner that will jeopardize the way our society and economy works, and the basic needs for incentives to work, and economic awards as per incentive. It is only for conditions that fall outside what *normal* working of the society and economy covers that the meaning of these rights - positive as well as collective - becomes operational. You described one special circumstance above where the 'collective' may need to 'pay' for fulfilling someone's right. Others are able to think of some other situations like this one. We all do agree that we need to be cautious in balancing rights, and the basic requirements of healthy working of the society (and the economy. Parminder Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving interpretation that > > such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have an implicit > > "as long as we can afford it" -clause. > > ;-) > > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. ALAWCAI. If > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate. > > One could consider Article 29 states' "ALAWCAI clause" for freedom of > expression. > > > And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet > > designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever > > languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right, > > i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your > > own language, I ask: who should pay for it? > > Indeed. Ask not only who should pay for it -- because it's easy to > volunteer someone else to pay for my benefits -- but ask also whether > making such a demand is the best way to get such content in one's own > language produced? Are there not more effective policy options? Is there > a danger that this kind of demand will act as a substitute for those > more effective options? > > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality cases I would > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For example, if voting > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an international > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think individuals > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. Even if it does > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to political > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. But there is > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 03:25:09 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:55:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080901155540.84C0DA6C88@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080902073403.DCD9CE2FAA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello I am interested in editing this document. Please send me the link to the Google Documents. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > The document has also been put on Google docs. > > Can you send the link please? > > All those who want to edit it > > please let me or Ian know. Thanks. Parminder > > > > I want, as I think, as usual, the rhetoric is too strong. > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 4 03:29:09 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:59:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080904072928.020BBA6C1F@smtp2.electricembers.net> McTim > I want, as I think, as usual, the rhetoric is too strong. > McTim I have sent the link to you with right to edit the doc. Others who want to edit may also please ask. The draft as it stands can be seen below. Parminder IGC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present. In this context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies in developing counties. It is important to make special efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development activity, including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not advisable to rely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. The Caucus agrees with the mandate given to the IGF by TA. We understand that the mandate is ambitious and complex, and a process of evolution towards its complete fulfillment may be needed. However, it is important to keep an eye on the full mandate as we go forward, and continuously make progress in achieving in its letter and intent. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF whereinputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Outcomes from deliberations at the IGF can be used for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape [1]. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. However, this should be done in a manner that expands the multi-stakeholder nature of global internet policy institutional framework rather than narrows it. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is already becoming evident. It is important in this regard for the IGF to have a more substantive inter-sessional work program rather than just of planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in substantive themes based Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. This useful start should be taken forward for more structured AND substantive inter-sessional work. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. _____ [1] To mention some of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Sep 4 03:42:30 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:42:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? In-Reply-To: <48BDDD6B.40D243EC@ix.netcom.com> References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> <48BC8302.58E16D1E@ix.netcom.com> <4eTfiTE7FuvIFAUz@perry.co.uk> <48BDDD6B.40D243EC@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: In message <48BDDD6B.40D243EC at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:42:20 on Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes >> If that's a bid for USA rules to work extra-territorially, you are >> getting into tricky ground. > No tricky ground what so ever. Read the GATT or NAFTA trade >agreements for refrence. So it's a trade agreement that (eg) stops a UK-based gambling site having customers in the USA (in a town where gambling was banned), and would also permit the USA to attempt stop it having UK customers (because USA thinks gambling should be banned there too)? > That should take you about 5 or 6 days each. Understanding them >takes a bit longer. ... > I sort of figured you would have a bit of a difficult time parsing the >difference "It's all too complicated for me to explain in simple language" isn't going to get you many converts, I fear. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 3 06:54:55 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:54:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law? References: <48B8B4EC.579E3775@ix.netcom.com> <48B9E757.6806CED4@ix.netcom.com> <48BB3BEF.A933CB11@ix.netcom.com> <5qLfvZSamPvIFAnn@perry.co.uk> <48BBCD78.AE0A08E8@ix.netcom.com> <48BC8302.58E16D1E@ix.netcom.com> <4eTfiTE7FuvIFAUz@perry.co.uk> <48BDDD6B.40D243EC@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48BE6CFF.8252E5CA@ix.netcom.com> Roland and all, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <48BDDD6B.40D243EC at ix.netcom.com>, at 17:42:20 on Tue, 2 Sep > 2008, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > > >> If that's a bid for USA rules to work extra-territorially, you are > >> getting into tricky ground. > > > No tricky ground what so ever. Read the GATT or NAFTA trade > >agreements for refrence. > > So it's a trade agreement that (eg) stops a UK-based gambling site > having customers in the USA (in a town where gambling was banned), and > would also permit the USA to attempt stop it having UK customers > (because USA thinks gambling should be banned there too)? Some states allow gambling, some even allow Internet Gambling sites and their use, others do not. As far as I know, no trade agreement prohibits such in any US state. But some US states have in the past 2 or 3 years taken it upon themselves to pass legislation prohibiting Internet Gambling. So your example here isn't really relevant to the larger issue that being what is related to trade agreements. Selling or promoting of controlled substances/drugs would be a relevant example for instance. Adult erotic web sites would be another. > > > > That should take you about 5 or 6 days each. Understanding them > >takes a bit longer. > > ... > > > I sort of figured you would have a bit of a difficult time parsing the > >difference > > "It's all too complicated for me to explain in simple language" isn't > going to get you many converts, I fear. Here we agree to a point. Not my idea certainly. I do agree that some sorts of DN related content needs to be regulated, even some, but far less, needs to be banned all together. And so yet again why Internet Zoning as has been suggested cannot, and simply will not work due to the fact that the Internet is global, not local in it's reach and/or access. So to take acceptation to some sorts of DN related content is offensive to some in some US states, and those states are taking action to mitigate access to such content. Other content is considered a security and safety concern on a national basis in the US, UK, and other nations. So, such access is being denied by those countries indigenous citizens rightly or wrongly or even with or without their consent accordingly, which the latter I personally find very questionable as the consent of the governed is being usurped inappropriately or possibly unconstitutionally. FWIW, I personally see nothing bad or intrinsically evil about internet gambling web sites. However I personally don't gamble, but see no reason others should be prohibited from doing so. I do believe that some regulation as to how Internet Gambling sites are managed is a wise precaution against fraud and abuse of those that may participate in Internet Gambling and that regardless of where those sites are hosted, those regulations must be applied and enforced vigorously. Such would be a daunting task in some instances such as a DN based gambling site hosted in say, Samaila or Tajiakastan. And such regulation must include extradition of perpatrators of Gambling fraud as defined by said regulations so that justice and punishment if applicable, can be properly ajudicated and/or administered as is appropriate. > > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 3 06:57:57 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:57:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <48BE700A.9060001@wzb.eu> <200809031151.m83Bow6G000659@mx1.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E618@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BE6DB5.4F8091BF@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, My response and remarks below Milton's... Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop > > alternative conceptions to state centered notions of development, > > security, culture etc > > to move toward a more people-centric one. > > Interesting response, P. > > > The problem with global Internet > > policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric > > notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one which > is > > built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are > > trying to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one. > > Agreed. But my main objection to your rights language, especially in the > context of the UN system, is that it drags us into the muck of > state-centric positive rights, based on a view of the UN system as a > gigantic social welfarist regime that can somehow deliver anything and > everything to anyone who demands it. The gap between that conception and > reality of the UN system of course is unbearable. Unbearable at least. It may happen some day, but the world that I now know isn't ready for such a concept. The UN cannot even support itself and many of it's member states are far behind on their contributions for a number of reasons. So as Gerry Spence is fond of saying, "Where's the beef"! > > > > (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such > a > > framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception of > > human rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions > > that serve those who are at present politically dominant will neither > be > > To me, "people-centered" means individual rights because the individual > is the one constant across nations, cultures, etc. I don't think > concepts of basic, narrow but fundamental rights "serve those who are at > present politically dominant" -- else why would states from Russia to > the US be so eagerly and with impunity violating them? Yes this is unfortunately a serious conundrum of huge proportions. Yet to espouse such rights isn't necessarly a bad idea and such language in an "Internet Bill of Rights" could include such "People-centered" rights, but only as they directly relate or are operationally related to the access and use of the Internet. For instance: "Freedom of expression" would be one such right. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 3 06:58:48 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:58:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <8A71806366794E89BD560C9862D79C42@HANANEPC> Message-ID: <48BE6DE8.FD254BAD@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, One thing is certain. Large stakeholders could give a dam about users "Internet Rights" as such does not necessarly benifit their stock holders or their coffers adaquately. For this reason amongst others, and an admited investor in several large internet stakeholders, Google, ect., I don't do business with them personally. McTim wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Hanane Boujemi wrote: > > > > Parminder and all, > > > > Indeed, my suggestion of the right of a multilingual Internet is purely > > reflecting the concern of a minority of Internet users who are not able to > > benefit fully of what Internet can offer. > > minority or majority? > > The reason lies behind the fact > > that there is a clear lack of reliable online content in languages like > > Arabic. The UNESCO is working on many projects to promote this concept and > > other organizations who are obviously concerned. > > perhaps UNESCO is "working" on it, could you point me to tangible results? > > The results I see from here are done largely by corporations, > including M$ applications and OS and online content translators: > (http://www.google.com/transconsole/giyl/check/status) > http://www.google.com/translate_t# > http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ > etc., with some notable achievements done by CS/academia > (http://translate.org.za/), and ICANNs work on IDNs. > > > > > The reason why I think a multilingual Internet might be included as right > > (if we all agree) > > which we seemingly don't, which was Milton's point. > > is to engage as many parties or stakeholders in making > > this concept a reality. > > That's all well and good, a laudable goal. However, if asking for it > a "right" turns off CS ppl like me, Milton and JH, imagine what it > would look like to gov't types? > > > > > As a native Arabic speaker using Internet for at least 12 hours a day, I > > mostly rely on English online content for the simple reason that content in > > Arabic is scarce (at least for the subjects I am interested in). > > I submit that it's up to Arabic speakers to engage in projects to > change this, or rely on the corporates to do it, for example, your > sentence above translated (free) by > http://www.systran.co.uk/arabic-english-translation/free-arabic-translation.htm > reads: > > ßÇáãÊÍÏË Ãåáíø ØÈíÚíø ÚÑÈíøÉ íÓÊÚãá ÅäÊÑäÊ á Úáì ÇáÃÞáø 12 [åææÑ Ç Ïí], ÃäÇ > Ýí ÇáÃÛáÈ ÇÚÊãÏÊ Úáì ãÍÊæì [ÅäÛáíÔ] ãÊæÝøÑ Úáì ÔÈßÉ ÇáÅäÊÑäÇÊ ááÓÈÈ > ÈÓíØÉ Ãäø ãÍÊæì [ÅíäÑÈíß] äÇÏÑ (Úáì ÇáÃÞáø áÇáãæÖæÚ ÃäÇ ÑÇÛÈÉ ÏÇÎá). > > Now, this may be an awful translation, but at least it is something. > > > > > This right falls as well under two major themes of IGF: diversity and > > access. I think it's feasible to include a multilingual Internet as an > > inherent right. > > > > I think it's an "ability" that uses users should have, but trying to > enshrine it in a "right" is a very big ask. As mentioned upthread, > "who is going to pay for this"? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 4 14:51:57 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:51:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. Substantively, I tried to do two things: First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a bit. For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the goal of developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 4 14:54:45 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:54:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809040652.m846qhqS029390@mx4.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E618@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809040652.m846qhqS029390@mx4.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215116@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > collectivist thinking that you may have. As I proposed > earlier you need to > live with an ethnic minority group and listen to them at length to get I do live with an ethnic minority group. I am an American. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 4 15:05:47 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:05:47 -0400 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <200809040709.m8479ClP027422@mx2.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E61A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809040709.m8479ClP027422@mx2.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215117@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) > clause, you know > that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even > to the negative ones. Not really, but too philosophical and time-consuming a debate to get into here. > You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. That was sarcasm. It meant, "as long as free expression doesn't threaten states, we'll allow it." > Within this group we have provisions in the charter that can be used to > 'limit' what may be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain kinds of > postings we can limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list participant > altogether. We are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a word you hate) whoa. I love the word. "collective action," "collective goods" it reminds me of Mancur Olson, our faculty decision making process, family. It is a false stereotype that methodological and political individualists are "against" or "dislike" groups. We just have our priorities right. one supports individual freedom, in part, so that individuals can form (and leave) any groups they like. Second, you are confusing a voluntarist group (the IGC) with state action. This group could decide (by consensus) that we all must salute chairman Parminder with a hearty "Ni!" every time you post on the list and kick off anyone who doesn't, then it can do that. That would not violate my political right to freedom of expression, it would just make me leave the group and start another one. > In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, > about which I ma getting many complaints, it may be found necessary > collectively (again) to revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list, because we may have > discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may > consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to > 'afford' if we have to remain effective etc. Ah, so some of you do not know how to use spam filters....yes, that's a good example of a policy we have every right to adopt. > > You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to > above, we are really far away form each other in our views. ??? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 4 15:06:29 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:06:29 -0400 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... In-Reply-To: <20080904070912.855876781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E61A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080904070912.855876781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215118@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> p.s., when do I start my new job at IT4C? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:09 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... > > > > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. > ALAWCAI. If > > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the > > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate. > > Thanks again. Accordingly, I have suggested a tentative 'may' > to be added in > the part on positive and collective rights. Hope you can > agree to this. > > As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) > clause, you know > that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even > to the negative > ones. > > You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. > Within this > group we have provisions in the charter that can be used to > 'limit' what may > be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain kinds of > postings we can > limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list participant > altogether. We > are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a word you hate) > cannot afford it, right. > > Do you not agree with this ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list? > > In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, > about which I ma > getting many complaints, it may be found necessary > collectively (again) to > revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list, because we may have > discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may > consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to > 'afford' if we > have to remain effective etc. > > > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality > cases I would > > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For > example, if voting > > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an > international > > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think > individuals > > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or > > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. > Even if it does > > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to > political > > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. > But there is > > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can > > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist) > > You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to > above, we are > really far away form each other in our views. No one > advocates rights in > manner that will jeopardize the way our society and economy > works, and the > basic needs for incentives to work, and economic awards as > per incentive. It > is only for conditions that fall outside what *normal* working of the > society and economy covers that the meaning of these rights - > positive as > well as collective - becomes operational. You described one special > circumstance above where the 'collective' may need to 'pay' > for fulfilling > someone's right. Others are able to think of some other > situations like this > one. We all do agree that we need to be cautious in balancing > rights, and > the basic requirements of healthy working of the society (and > the economy. > > Parminder > > > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen > > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving > interpretation that > > > such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have > an implicit > > > "as long as we can afford it" -clause. > > > > ;-) > > > > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. > ALAWCAI. If > > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the > > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate. > > > > One could consider Article 29 states' "ALAWCAI clause" for > freedom of > > expression. > > > > > And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet > > > designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever > > > languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right, > > > i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your > > > own language, I ask: who should pay for it? > > > > Indeed. Ask not only who should pay for it -- because it's easy to > > volunteer someone else to pay for my benefits -- but ask > also whether > > making such a demand is the best way to get such content in > one's own > > language produced? Are there not more effective policy > options? Is there > > a danger that this kind of demand will act as a substitute for those > > more effective options? > > > > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality > cases I would > > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For > example, if voting > > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an > international > > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think > individuals > > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or > > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. > Even if it does > > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to > political > > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. > But there is > > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can > > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Thu Sep 4 15:40:14 2008 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:40:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] on collective v. individual rights In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215117@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E61A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809040709.m8479ClP027422@mx2.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215117@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C0399E.2000609@umontreal.ca> Hi all, Without seeking to myself intervene in this discussion, I'd like to recommend an article that reviews the debates within the human rights literature on questions related to the juridicability of collective rights. She argues that the view that a dichotomy exists between first and second gen rights is largely discredited amongst contemporary human rights scholars and reviews more recent models that see individual and collective rights as more complimentary. Perhaps there is a road to compromise in her approach..... Koch, I.E. 2005. "Dichotomies, Trichotomies or Waves of Duties?” in Human Rights Law Review 5(1): 81-103. Regards, Jeremy Shtern --------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Shtern Researcher: the media at McGill unit for critical communication studies & PhD candidate (ABD): Université de Montréal, département de communication jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca ---------------------------------------------------- Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) >> clause, you know >> that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even >> to the negative ones. >> > > Not really, but too philosophical and time-consuming a debate to get > into here. > > >> You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. >> > > That was sarcasm. It meant, "as long as free expression doesn't threaten > states, we'll allow it." > > >> Within this group we have provisions in the charter that can be used >> > to > >> 'limit' what may be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain >> > kinds of > >> postings we can limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list >> > participant > >> altogether. We are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a >> > word you hate) > > whoa. I love the word. "collective action," "collective goods" it > reminds me of Mancur Olson, our faculty decision making process, family. > It is a false stereotype that methodological and political > individualists are "against" or "dislike" groups. We just have our > priorities right. one supports individual freedom, in part, so that > individuals can form (and leave) any groups they like. > > Second, you are confusing a voluntarist group (the IGC) with state > action. This group could decide (by consensus) that we all must salute > chairman Parminder with a hearty "Ni!" every time you post on the list > and kick off anyone who doesn't, then it can do that. That would not > violate my political right to freedom of expression, it would just make > me leave the group and start another one. > > >> In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, >> about which I ma getting many complaints, it may be found necessary >> collectively (again) to revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this >> > list, because we may have > >> discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may >> consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to >> 'afford' if we have to remain effective etc. >> > > Ah, so some of you do not know how to use spam filters....yes, that's a > good example of a policy we have every right to adopt. > > >> You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to >> above, we are really far away form each other in our views. >> > > ??? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hananeb at diplomacy.edu Thu Sep 4 15:49:14 2008 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:49:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080903104953.CD7B06781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> <8A71806366794E89BD560C9862D79C42@HANANEPC> Message-ID: <122830E5E8A6450D8C757A3149183B69@HANANEPC> Hello, I find it a good idea to engage local capacities to promote this concept, emphasizing a multilingual Internet as a natural right will speed up its reinforcement. The management of online content in other languages should definitely be the responsibility of the people who can eventually understand the language! The UNESCO initiative is a long term project ( like all UN projects) that will 'hopefully' bring tangible results, but at least there is a will and a clear understanding of the necessity to provide an Internet with various languages , an Internet for 'ALL'. As for considering this right as a BIG ask, I am sure that the same controversy was created when the right of indigenous people had to be approved :) and other rights… Hanane ----- Original Message ----- From: "McTim" To: ; "Hanane Boujemi" Cc: "Parminder" Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Hanane Boujemi > wrote: >> >> Parminder and all, >> >> Indeed, my suggestion of the right of a multilingual Internet is purely >> reflecting the concern of a minority of Internet users who are not able >> to >> benefit fully of what Internet can offer. > > minority or majority? > > The reason lies behind the fact >> that there is a clear lack of reliable online content in languages like >> Arabic. The UNESCO is working on many projects to promote this concept >> and >> other organizations who are obviously concerned. > > perhaps UNESCO is "working" on it, could you point me to tangible results? > > The results I see from here are done largely by corporations, > including M$ applications and OS and online content translators: > (http://www.google.com/transconsole/giyl/check/status) > http://www.google.com/translate_t# > http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ > etc., with some notable achievements done by CS/academia > (http://translate.org.za/), and ICANNs work on IDNs. > >> >> The reason why I think a multilingual Internet might be included as right >> (if we all agree) > > which we seemingly don't, which was Milton's point. > > is to engage as many parties or stakeholders in making >> this concept a reality. > > That's all well and good, a laudable goal. However, if asking for it > a "right" turns off CS ppl like me, Milton and JH, imagine what it > would look like to gov't types? > > >> >> As a native Arabic speaker using Internet for at least 12 hours a day, I >> mostly rely on English online content for the simple reason that content >> in >> Arabic is scarce (at least for the subjects I am interested in). > > I submit that it's up to Arabic speakers to engage in projects to > change this, or rely on the corporates to do it, for example, your > sentence above translated (free) by > http://www.systran.co.uk/arabic-english-translation/free-arabic-translation.htm > reads: > > كالمتحدث أهليّ طبيعيّ عربيّة يستعمل إنترنت ل على الأقلّ 12 [هوور ا دي], > أنا > في الأغلب اعتمدت على محتوى [إنغليش] متوفّر على شبكة الإنترنات للسبب > بسيطة أنّ محتوى [إينربيك] نادر (على الأقلّ لالموضوع أنا راغبة داخل). > > Now, this may be an awful translation, but at least it is something. > >> >> This right falls as well under two major themes of IGF: diversity and >> access. I think it's feasible to include a multilingual Internet as an >> inherent right. >> > > I think it's an "ability" that uses users should have, but trying to > enshrine it in a "right" is a very big ask. As mentioned upthread, > "who is going to pay for this"? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Sep 4 18:25:40 2008 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How the 'Net works an introduction to peering and transit Message-ID: How the 'Net works an introduction to peering and transit By Rudolph van der Berg | Published: September 02, 2008 http://arstechnica.com/guides/other/peering-and-transit.ars/1 (Four Pages: 1/2/3/4) Whose pipes? In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously told BusinessWeek, "What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that…Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" The story of how the Internet is structured economically is not so much a story about net neutrality, but rather it's a story about how ISPs actually do use AT&T's pipes for free, and about why AT&T actually wants them to do so. These inter-ISP sharing arrangements are known as "peering" or "transit," and they are the two mechanisms that underlie the interconnection of networks that form the Internet. In this article, I'll to take a look at the economics of peering of transit in order to give you a better sense of how traffic flows from point A to point B on the Internet, and how it does so mostly without problems, despite the fact that the Internet is a patchwork quilt of networks run by companies, schools, and governments. The basics At the moment, the Internet consists of over 25,000 Autonomous Systems (AS). An Autonomous System can independently decide who to exchange traffic with on the 'Net, and it isn't dependent upon a third party for access. Networks of Internet service providers, hosting providers, telecommunications monopolists, multinationals, schools, hospitals and even individuals can be Autonomous Systems; all you need is a single "AS number" and a block of provider independent IP-numbers. These can be had from a regional Internet registry (like RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC and AFRINIC). Though one network may be larger or smaller, technically and economically they have equal possibilities. (Most organizations and individuals do not interconnect autonomously to other networks, but connect via an ISP. One could say that an end-user is "buying transit" from his ISP.) In order to get traffic from one end-user to another end-user, these networks need to have an interconnection mechanism. These interconnections can be either direct between two networks or indirect via one or more other networks that agree to transport the traffic. A <--> B (direct) A <-->C<-->D<-->…<-->B (indirect) Most network connections are indirect, since it is nearly impossible to interconnect directly with all networks on the globe. (The likes of FLAG and AT&T might come close, but even they can't claim global network coverage.) In order to make it from one end of the world to another, the traffic will often be transferred through several indirect interconnections to reach the end-user. The economic arrangements that allow networks to interconnect directly and indirectly are called "peering" and "transit": Peering: when two or more autonomous networks interconnect directly with each other to exchange traffic. This is often done without charging for the interconnection or the traffic. Transit: when one autonomous network agrees to carry the traffic that flows between another autonomous network and all other networks. Since no network connects directly to all other networks, a network that provides transit will deliver some of the traffic indirectly via one or more other transit networks. A transit provider's routers will announce to other networks that they can carry traffic to the network that has bought transit. The transit provider receives a "transit fee" for the service. The transit fee is based on a reservation made up-front for the number of Mbps. Traffic from (upstream) and to (downstream) the network is included in the transit fee; when you buy 10Mbps/month from a transit provider you get 10 up and 10 down. The traffic can either be limited to the amount reserved, or the price can be calculated afterward (often leaving the top five percent out of the calculation to correct for aberrations). Going over a reservation may lead to a penalty. Figure 1: peering vs. transit [see: http://media.arstechnica.com/guides/other/peering-and-transit.media/diagram-1.gif ] These mechanisms are pictured schematically in the diagrams above. Diagram I shows peering between two networks. Diagram II shows transit over two networks. Diagram III shows transit over three networks where there is a peering agreement between networks C and D, and A and B both pay for transit. Diagram IV shows how A pays to C, and B and C pay to D for transit. -- Peering When a network refuses to peer for another network, things can get ugly. I once heard the following anecdote at a RIPE meeting. Allegedly, a big American software company was refused peering by one of the incumbent telco networks in the north of Europe. The American firm reacted by finding the most expensive transit route for that telco and then routing its own traffic to Europe over that link. Within a couple of months, the European CFO was asking why the company was paying out so much for transit. Soon afterward, there was a peering arrangement between the two networks. Given the rules of peering, we can examine how an ISP will behave when trying to build and grow its network, customer base, revenues, and profits. To serve its customers, an ISP needs its own network to which customers connect. The costs of the ISP's network (lines, switches, depreciation, people, etc.) can be seen as fixed; costs don't increase when an extra bit is sent over the network compared to when there is no traffic on the network. Traffic that stays on the ISP's network is the cheapest traffic for that ISP. In fact, it's basically free. Peering costs a bit more, since the ISP will have to pay for a port and the line to connect to the other network, but over an established peering connection there is no additional cost for the traffic. Transit traffic is the most expensive. The ISP will have to estimate how much traffic it needs, and any extra traffic will cost extra. If the ISP is faced with extra traffic (think large-scale P2P use), its first priority will be to keep the traffic on its own network. If it can't, it will then use peering, and as a last resort it will pay for transit. Figure 2 [see: http://media.arstechnica.com/guides/other/peering-and-transit.media/diagram-2.gif] Every ISP will need to buy some amount of transit to be able to interconnect with the entire world, and to achieve resilience, an ISP will choose more than one transit provider. Transit costs money, and as the ISP grows, its transit bill will grow, too. In order to reduce its transit bill, the ISP will look for suitable networks to peer with. When two networks determine that the costs of interconnecting directly (peering) are lower than the costs of buying transit from each other, they'll have an economic incentive to peer. Peering's costs lie in the switches and the lines necessary to connect the networks; after a peering has been established, the marginal costs of sending one bit are zero. It then becomes economically feasible to send as much traffic between the two network peers as is technically possible, so when two networks interconnect at 1Gbps, they will use the full 1Gbps. But with transit, even though it is technically possible to interconnect at 1Gbps, if the transit-buying network has only bought 100Mbps, it will be limited to that amount. Transit will remain as a backup for when the peering connection gets disrupted. The money an ISP saves by peering will go into expanding the business. Another important limitation of peering is that it is open only to traffic coming from a peer's end-users or from networks that have bought transit. A transit provider will not announce a route toward a network it peers with to other networks it peers with or buys transit from. If it did announce the route, it would be providing free transit over its network for its peers or, even worse, buying transit from another network and giving it away freely to a peer. This situation is illustrated below (blue is peering, red is transit). Figure 3 [see:http://media.arstechnica.com/guides/other/peering-and-transit.media/diagram-3.gif] Network G can see all the networks because networks E, D and H buy transit from it. Network A can see network F and its customers directly, but not network B through network F. Network C can see Network B through its peer D, but not via its transit customer F. Traffic from C to H will go trough E, but not through D. The higher up in the network you are, the more networks you can see without needing to pay someone else for transit. In the example above, a network like G is sometimes said to be a Tier 1 network, because it buys transit from no one, yet still has access to the whole network. It's a common misconception that the benefit an ISP derives from peering depends upon the direction of the flow of traffic. According to this way of thinking, if YouTube peers with an ISP, this benefits YouTube more than it does the ISP (since YouTube sends so much data but receives comparatively little). But in practice, the flow of traffic is not an issue for an interconnect. Whether it goes to or from the network, companies still need the same Cisco equipment. In practice, it is actually quite likely that the ISP side of an ISP-YouTube relationship would see the greatest savings both in absolute costs and as a percentage of total traffic costs. Most ISPs have less traffic (and buy less transit) than YouTube and its parent Google have. Their buying power therefore is less than that of YouTube/Google, so their price per Mbps/month for transit is likely to be higher. Given that the amount of traffic saved from transit is by definition equal for both YouTube and the ISP, it follows that the ISP is saving more money. -- Hot potato, cold potato Another source of contention and confusion is arguments between "hot potato" and "cold potato" routing. Hot potato routing is the practice of handing over traffic at the earliest convenience (hot, hot! Here, you take it!), while cold potato routing is where you hold onto traffic as long as you can before handing it over to another network. There are long debates in the networking world about which of these is the best solution. Hot potato routing may overload a link to an interconnection point with many peers, or it might force a global network provider to carry traffic all the way from Europe to South America at its own cost if it has peered with another network, whereas it could have sold transit. Some transit providers have solved this problem by splitting their networks into several regional Autonomous Systems and only peering locally (not globally) with each of its AS numbers. Cold potato routing may give the originating network greater control over quality, except that it is making a guess on the status of the network beyond its own routers. In a cold potato scenario, it's difficult to factor in changes that happen over time, as guesses are made based on the past. Hot potato routing, on the other hand, assumes that the other guy knows best how to route traffic on his network, and it also assumes that if the other network gets overloaded at a location, it will have the biggest incentive to upgrade or to restructure its interconnects. Pay to peer? Would it be advisable to pay for peering? There has been significant debate on whether it is beneficial to pay for peering, but I think that peering should typically be free. When two networks peer, they both save the same amount of traffic from transit. As stated previously, the monetary benefits of not having to use transit depend upon the transit price that each network pays. The network that saves the least is the network that has the best transit deals. If, for both networks, a peering agreement is cheaper than buying transit, then the choice of who should pay for the peering agreement becomes completely arbitrary. One could say that the network that saves more money should share the savings with the network that saves less, but on what basis? The peering in itself is already there. Paying money for it or sharing the benefits doesn't make it better. The only reason the smaller party pays more is because it is in a less fortunate position when it comes to buying transit. If, through renegotiation of transit contracts, it is all of a sudden better off, it would still be hard to convince the other network to reverse payments. Worse still, it would in fact be sponsoring the other network to attain even lower overall traffic costs. If the two networks at the same time compete for the same customers, it would now be sponsoring its competitor. There might be situations where a peering might be beneficial to network A, but the savings are too little for network B. In such a case it might look good to A to pay B for a peering agreement to increase B's savings to such a level that both parties will profit. Though this might sound good at first, it could have unintended consequences for network A. If the traffic between the two networks grows to such a level that both parties benefit equally from the peering, B will still want to try to keep the payment for the peering; it's essentially free money. Another problem with pay to peer is that networks would have an incentive to understate their transit costs in order to become a receiving party. This makes it less likely that both parties would reach a peering agreement, because one party is lying about its benefits and the other is not willing to pay. This is hard to check for either party. The best thing a network can do is hope that when it's economical for this network to peer for free, it is the same case for the other network. If not, the transaction costs of other arrangements are probably too high. Peering Locations Peering will happen at a location that is most convenient for both networks. When two networks decide to peer in one location, that location immediately becomes a valuable place at which to peer for other networks, too. This increase in value causes more and more networks to cluster together at certain locations. In the history of the internet, we can see that at first, these locations were at the sites where academic networks interconnected, and later on at large co-location facilities. In order to facilitate peering, Internet exchange points (IXPs) were established at those locations. In Europe these IXPs are typically not-for-profit associations, while in the USA they operate as private businesses. Putting a single switch in between all the parties who want to interconnect makes it possible to reach all parties with one connection (public interconnect), instead of having to dedicate a line and a port on a switch for each interconnection. This does require IXP's to be neutral and uninvolved in the business of their customers; the process of peering and transit is up to the networks, and the IXP is just responsible for the technical functioning of the switch. This doesn't mean, however, that peerings will take place only through the IXP. There will still be direct interconnects that bypass the exchange (known as private interconnects), where the exchange can act as a backup for that interconnect (and a transit connection often acts as a backup for that backup). When more and more networks roll out in the location of the Internet exchange point, this location becomes valuable not only for peering, but also for buying and selling transit. This will attract transit providers to the location in order to peer with other networks that sell transit and also to try and sell transit to networks needing it. The increase in transit providers will cause more competition and, therefore, a lowering of transit costs, which will, in turn, increase the attractiveness of the location for other networks through the combination of more peers and lower transit costs. As networks grow, some of them will exchange more and more traffic with networks that are not yet present at the local Internet exchange. If the costs of buying a direct connection to another location where networks are present is lower than the costs of transit, then the network will expand toward the low-cost location. This is quite clear in Europe, where medium and large networks will almost always be present at the IXPs of Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt, and Paris. In these cities, there are many networks to interconnect with and the price of transit is at its lowest. The irony is that in some of these towns, transit prices have dropped to such lows that it's no longer economical for some smaller networks to interconnect at an IXP, since the transit fee saved is lower than the monthly fee for the IXP. In a nutshell, the economics of interconnection are: Peer as much as you can, to avoid transit fees. Use the savings from peering to expand your business and network. Use the expansion of your business and network to become more attractive for others to peer with and to reach those that are attractive to peer with. Establish IXPs in order to further lower the costs of peering, to bring together as many networks as possible, and to create locations where there is competition between providers of transit. Repeat. -- Transit economics Providing transit has its own rationales and economic mechanisms. Transit providers charge transit fees in order to recoup their investment in the lines and switches that make up their networks. The price of transit will be a combination of the costs of running the network, plus the amount of transit the transit provider has bought, minus (maybe) the traffic that is destined directly for peers and customers of the transit provider. Being a pure transit provider with only Autonomous Systems as customers puts a network in a weird spot. Such a network's business case is built on being the intermediary in the flow of traffic, so it tries to charge all of the other autonomous systems for their traffic. The problem for a pure transit provider is that its customers are always looking at ways to lower their transit fees, and lower transit fees can be had by switching to a competitor or by not using the transit provider at all. So disintermediating the transit provider is standard behavior for the transit provider's customers. How can the transit provider prevent its customers from going to competitors or from cutting it out of the loop? The first way is to keep prices down. If a transit provider is the only provider of a link between Geneva and Amsterdam, it will have to be very aware that its price stays low. If it's too high, the customers may opt to cancel their transit contracts and either build their own links or compel a competitor to step into the market and start competing. The other trick is to actively work to keep competitors from entering the market. How do you persuade people not to enter the market? By keeping margins low, even as growth rises. Fiber is a fixed-cost investment, because traffic can be supported for little or no extra cost. Though it's tempting to let profits rise with the growth of traffic, the network will actually have to lower its traffic price every month in order for margins to remain the same, thereby keeping intact the barrier to entry for a competing network. A couple of cooperating ISPs can also be dangerous to the business plan of a pure transit player. These networks could cooperate in creating a backbone between their networks in order to carry traffic to and from eachother's systems. For instance, Dutch, Belgian, French, and Swiss ISPs could work together and bypass a Trans-European transit provider. So a pure transit play is under constant threat even from existing customers who resell traffic. An interesting tactic that I once heard about was from a content-heavy hosting provider who was trying to buy transit from residential ISPs. ISPs have a high inflow of traffic; hosting providers have high outbound traffic. Because incoming and outgoing traffic are bundled into the same price, the hosting provider rightly had determined that there would be ISPs willing to resell upstream capacity they didn't use. For the pure transit player this might be seen as a loss of income. In the end, pure transit is debatable as a real business model. An average end-user is bound to its ISP by numerous switching costs (change of e-mail address, lack of knowledge, time, hassle, etc.), but this customer lock-in just does not apply to transit. The Border Gateway Protocol propagates a change in transit provider within seconds, globally. Autonomous Systems can switch within seconds and there is little a transit provider can do to differentiate itself from rivals. Add to this the effect of competitors and mutually assured destruction, and one can understand that there is not much money to be had in this business. Tough at the top: word about Tier 1 networks Tier 1 networks are those networks that don't pay any other network for transit yet still can reach all networks connected to the internet. There are about seven such networks in the world. Being a Tier 1 is considered very "cool," but it is an unenviable position. A Tier 1 is constantly faced with customers trying to bypass it, and this is a threat to its business. On top of the threat from customers, a Tier 1 also faces the danger of being de-peered by other Tier 1s. This de-peering happens when one Tier 1 network thinks that the other Tier 1 is not sufficiently important to be considered an equal. The bigger Tier 1 will then try to get a transit deal or paid peering deal with the smaller Tier 1, and if the smaller one accepts, then it is acknowledging that it is not really a Tier 1. But if the smaller Tier 1 calls the bigger Tier 1's bluff and actually does get de-peered, some of the customers of either network can't reach each other. If a network has end-users (consumers or businesses), it's probably in a better business position than a Tier 1 or a pure-play transit provider, since having end-users provides stability to a business. Autonomous Systems can switch within seconds, but end-users are stickier customers. Churn is less of a problem and revenues are therefore more stable and easier to base decisions on, since prices don't have to drop on a monthly basis. So an end-user business, combined with a bit of transit is, therefore, ideal for a network provider. Can peering and transit lead to a steady state? Economists often ask if peering and transit can lead to a steady state, i.e., a situation that can sustain itself by generating enough money for investments while also providing a dynamic and competitive environment. I personally think the answer is yes. Experiences in recent years have shown a big boom and bust in long haul networks. However, I do believe these are the result of over-investment and not problems with the model of peering and transit. Five overprovisioned networks on the same route are too much for any business case. So yes, if investment is done prudently, and if the owners of transit networks understand that they will have to lower prices continuously or face mutually assured destruction, then it is possible to have a stable state. Further reading: The Art of Peering; The peering playbook http://www.blogg.ch/uploads/peering-playbook.pdf --- End -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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 4 01:25:20 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:25:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E618@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809040652.m846qhqS029390@mx4.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215116@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BF7140.680164C1@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, ROFLMAO! Well said! And oh so true! I might have stated it as such: I do live with a *poor* ethnic minority group. I am an American. Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > collectivist thinking that you may have. As I proposed > > earlier you need to > > live with an ethnic minority group and listen to them at length to get > > I do live with an ethnic minority group. I am an American. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 4 01:29:09 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:29:09 -0700 Subject: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E61A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080904070912.855876781D@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215118@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BF7224.D8B8FE85@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, And does the IT4C have more than one position open, my 85 year old mother says she is also interested in a position, and was once ask to run as Lt. Gov. An extra, she is also disabled so if there is an OSHA consideration she would be a good candidate to help there as well... >:) Milton L Mueller wrote: > p.s., when do I start my new job at IT4C? > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:09 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... > > > > > > > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. > > ALAWCAI. If > > > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the > > > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate. > > > > Thanks again. Accordingly, I have suggested a tentative 'may' > > to be added in > > the part on positive and collective rights. Hope you can > > agree to this. > > > > As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) > > clause, you know > > that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even > > to the negative > > ones. > > > > You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. > > Within this > > group we have provisions in the charter that can be used to > > 'limit' what may > > be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain kinds of > > postings we can > > limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list participant > > altogether. We > > are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a word you hate) > > cannot afford it, right. > > > > Do you not agree with this ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list? > > > > In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, > > about which I ma > > getting many complaints, it may be found necessary > > collectively (again) to > > revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list, because we may have > > discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may > > consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to > > 'afford' if we > > have to remain effective etc. > > > > > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality > > cases I would > > > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For > > example, if voting > > > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an > > international > > > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think > > individuals > > > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or > > > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. > > Even if it does > > > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to > > political > > > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. > > But there is > > > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can > > > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist) > > > > You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to > > above, we are > > really far away form each other in our views. No one > > advocates rights in > > manner that will jeopardize the way our society and economy > > works, and the > > basic needs for incentives to work, and economic awards as > > per incentive. It > > is only for conditions that fall outside what *normal* working of the > > society and economy covers that the meaning of these rights - > > positive as > > well as collective - becomes operational. You described one special > > circumstance above where the 'collective' may need to 'pay' > > for fulfilling > > someone's right. Others are able to think of some other > > situations like this > > one. We all do agree that we need to be cautious in balancing > > rights, and > > the basic requirements of healthy working of the society (and > > the economy. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:34 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen > > > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving > > interpretation that > > > > such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have > > an implicit > > > > "as long as we can afford it" -clause. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause. > > ALAWCAI. If > > > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the > > > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate. > > > > > > One could consider Article 29 states' "ALAWCAI clause" for > > freedom of > > > expression. > > > > > > > And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet > > > > designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever > > > > languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right, > > > > i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your > > > > own language, I ask: who should pay for it? > > > > > > Indeed. Ask not only who should pay for it -- because it's easy to > > > volunteer someone else to pay for my benefits -- but ask > > also whether > > > making such a demand is the best way to get such content in > > one's own > > > language produced? Are there not more effective policy > > options? Is there > > > a danger that this kind of demand will act as a substitute for those > > > more effective options? > > > > > > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality > > cases I would > > > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For > > example, if voting > > > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an > > international > > > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think > > individuals > > > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or > > > translations of laws/policies be made available to them. > > Even if it does > > > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to > > political > > > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge. > > But there is > > > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can > > > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 4 05:05:26 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:05:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48BFA4D6.6C41AC5@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Milton, after reading your "Adjustments" closely several times, I personally found them very good. I wouldn't change a single word in fact. Very well done, and thank you! >:) I would from this now start to get down to specific language in respect to specific definitions for what those "Rights" should be. Any objections? Milton L Mueller wrote: > > OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of > the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in > many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a > shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. > Substantively, I tried to do two things: > First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights > talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the > argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with > this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. > Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent > and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to > privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a > bit. > For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > IGC’s input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > />Hyderabad. > > ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 > in Egypt > > The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a > global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use > information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet > stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must > protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of > expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." > However, little follow up work has been done to enact these > commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that ‘Rights and > the Internet’ be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and > that the IGF-4’s program be framed by the goal of developing a > rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus > has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was > sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of > Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a > discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make ‘Rights > and the Internet’ an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify > and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how > they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which > ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are > currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society > actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere > only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. > > > > The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, > conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of > positive and collective rights – for instance a right to Internet > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to > have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important > IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive > and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as > rights. > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where > information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. > Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens > in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these > rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme > area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to > political participation may have important new implications in the > internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping > ofglobally applicable internet policies. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for > this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF > meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it > might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people’s homes > and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and > citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges > including the right to know and completely ‘own’ the products and > services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control > user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, > and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what > rights users have. > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as > a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. > The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles > which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access > knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' > property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, > computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the > regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > “rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. > We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete > with each other. For example, a claim that there is a “right to > Internet access” may imply an obligation on states to fund and > provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible > for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures > on them to exert controls over what content users can access using > public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the > proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The > change in the technical methods of communication often undermines > pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the > IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other > global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for > IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based > framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. > > It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take > up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully > expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards > developing ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of > the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 5 03:42:28 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:12:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080905074243.73099E0401@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. I request all others who think that the 'rights and the Internet' issue is important, to please chip in. The time for engaging and contributing is *now* when we are trying to make an input from IGC that is expected to be used as crucial element in what we expect to become as a campaign for getting 'rights and the Internet' as a mainstreamed framework for IGF's discussions, in a similar manner as a rights framework is used in many other global policy forums. We may want to use this framework as our principal thrust for our engagements with the IGF. I am quite positive that if we can get good civil society weight behind the 'rights and the Internet' agenda there is a good chance that we can convince the powers-that-be to take it seriously. One main problem with civil society's involvement with IG spaces has been that it hasn't come up with a coherent alternative people-centered agenda which can give it the needed leverage in these spaces. Now, about the issues with Milton's amendments, and my suggested amendments to his amendments: First the most contested part of the statement "One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. " "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights." It is important to recognize that there are two important and different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC membership that really contests the very validity of the category of positive and collective rights. I invite members' comments on this statement. Accordingly, I don't think an IGC statement should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to access internet (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of 'wanting to explore' with regard to these rights. So I propose that the above paras be amended as below "One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened." "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." The second problem is about your addition of the following para "We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. " This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the Internet' and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. I however find the last two sentences - which I know you state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access - very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email. I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. "The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance." If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader, including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, which go beyond these two rights. Mentioning just these two rights in the opening para fall into the same trap, and in a way defeats the purpose of anchoring a broader rights discourse in the IG space. I will either remove this part, or replace it by the reaffirmation of "the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as enshrined in the Vienna Declaration" from the opening parts of Geneva declaration. We can in addition mention that the Geneva declaration opens with declaration of "our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." We need to move fast and close this in the next four days, but I think we are making good progress. Parminder _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. Substantively, I tried to do two things: First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a bit. For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the goal of developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Sep 5 04:57:16 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:57:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080905074243.73099E0401@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080905074243.73099E0401@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7F34165B-642F-42D4-81A3-90350244BC31@Malcolm.id.au> On 05/09/2008, at 3:42 PM, Parminder wrote: > It is important to recognize that there are two important and > different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a > category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > membership that really contests the very validity of the category of > positive and collective rights. I invite members’ comments on this > statement. Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement should go out > casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I > would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. Only if they can be removed without suggesting the reverse: that there is accord within civil society about the existence of positive and collective rights. Although I don't agree that it is a "very small minority" who take issue with over-expansive conceptions of rights, I do agree that it should not be a central theme of our submission. In this regard I think that your language, by side-stepping this disagreement, is basically unobjectionable. > This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right to the > Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. > I would delete the whole para. I agree, not so much because I find anything to disagree with in it, but more because I don't think it sends a useful message. > I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. > “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed > a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use > information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure > Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter > spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and > freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of > Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact > these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance.” > If this paragraph is to be amended I would prefer that rather than referring to the "right to development" (that has been disputed on this list and is not recognised in hard international law), we simply add something like ", let alone any of the other fundamental human rights referenced in the opening of the Geneva Declaration". -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 5 08:12:34 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:42:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080905121302.E4517E0492@smtp3.electricembers.net> Milton Some more stuff on your amendments. This has to do with your changes to the part on IPR. In discussing 'right to access the Internet', you mention the following. "There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. " I will like to use this formulation in my arguments regarding IPR. I did ask you in an earlier email about how you consider property rights as real rights in the sense of being negative rights, in the complicated property systems that we have today (email enclosed). I enquired further how especially IPR, and even more so IPR in digital space, could be considered a negative right. In fact right to access knowledge (positioned against IPR in WIPO discussions) looks more of a negative right, and IPR a positive right. When I use an idea I can no way interfere with any other person's right to use it - though I may interfere with his state-aided scheme to make money out of it, which may be a socio-economic device to promote innovation etc, but I cant see it as a right, as rights go, especially in your restrictive definition. So, apart from the fact that you never answered whether you do not consider right to education as a real right, I would also like to know how you consider IPR as a real negative right. I especially ask because first McTim removed the text on - are IPR real rights? Which was only an exploratory question, given that a lot of civil society really doesn't consider IPR as a real right. And now in your present set of amendments you have tried to make sure that there is no implication that IPR as a category of rights itself may be contested, changing the earlier text "While the 'right to property' has conventionally been considered of considerable importance, its applicability and mutations in the the digital environment, particularly in the form of Intellectual Property rights, is current being widely contested." to "While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents." Your sensitivity to any implications that IPR themselves may be problematic as rights, when in fact it is difficult to think of them as negative rights, while putting in statement of doubts whether positive and collective rights are even legitimate categories is interesting, and does show that our views comes more from respective political economy thinking rather than essentialist notions of what may be rights and what not. In the original text there was another question - Are corporate entities entitled to rights as we understand the term? I think McTim removed it. What do you think of it? For someone so adamant that rights can cohere only in individuals, such rights belonging not just to collectives - who still are individuals, even if a bunch of them - but to an abstract limited liability entity should be anathema. Why would you not oppose IPRs, especially Corporate IPRs from the same essentialist position that you oppose positive and collective rights? I think there is a lack of mutual understanding and appreciation of what we respectively mean by rights, and that over some deliberations it is possible for us to agree to a good extent. Parminder _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. Substantively, I tried to do two things: First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a bit. For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the goal of developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: RE: [governance] Two outrageous stories of so-called "intellectual property protection" Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:44:53 +0530 Size: 29805 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 5 09:43:37 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:43:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809050742.m857ghLL026046@mx2.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809050742.m857ghLL026046@mx2.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. Agreed. It is important to recognize that there are two important and different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC membership that really contests the very validity of the category of positive and collective rights. I invite members' comments on this statement. Accordingly, I don't think an IGC statement should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an expression of IGC. The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to access internet (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of 'wanting to explore' with regard to these rights. I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. "We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. " This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the Internet' and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. I however find the last two sentences - which I know you state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access - very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email. The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and identity. I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. "The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance." If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader, This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. You start with the area where there is the most common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already committed themselves to it, I think the line about balancing security concerns with other rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it can be taken. including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, which go beyond these two rights. Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the vast majority of people. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 5 09:47:28 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:47:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation initiatives Message-ID: Hi, The European Commission recently published a study assessing the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris Marsden ) The study is available from European Commission The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 short case studies. Case studies were presented in four groupings: Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) Total of all phases about 1300 pages. A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago (3rd qtr 2007). 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 Fri Sep 5 09:53:47 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:53:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr. edu> References: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080905135530.7386D13FA56@mail.gn.apc.org> hi milton, all in terms of defining rights.. just to remind (and apologies if i sound like a broken record) that several groups now have attempted to do this including APC, the BOR coalition, global partners, UNESCO, the work of the WSIS CS Human Rights caucus and the CRIS campaign so let's build on the collective work done this past 10 years or so if i recall correctly (lisa - please correct me if i'm wrong) - global partners put together a document that mapped such documents.. it might be useful to refer to that (and update if necessary) in this work i think we have a good chance of influencing the cairo agenda if we build this work carefully and inclusively (not to suggest we aren't already) over the next 6-12 months karen At 19:51 04/09/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90EBF.4EBACFA5" > > >OK, I just made some extensive edits to the >rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was >editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness >in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the >fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope >people agree on the stylistic improvements. > >Substantively, I tried to do two things: > >First, make it clearer that the definition and >application of rights talk is contested and >complicated -- and use that to bolster the >argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF >Egypt. In line with this, I added a quotation >from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. > >Second, group and expand certain discussions to >run in a more coherent and structured manner. >For example, there were scattered references to >privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a bit. > >For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below > >Milton Mueller >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org > > >IGC’s input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Hyderabad. > >‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > >The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights >when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the >freedom to seek, receive, impart and use >information" and affirmed that "measures >undertaken to ensure Internet stability and >security, to fight cybercrime and to counter >spam, must protect and respect the provisions >for privacy and freedom of expression as >contained in the relevant parts of the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva >Declaration of Principles." However, little >follow up work has been done to enact these >commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. > >The Internet Governance Caucus strongly >recommends that ‘Rights and the Internet’ be >made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, >and that the IGF-4’s program be framed by the >goal of developing a rights-based discourse in >the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has >already expressed support for the letter on this >subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic >Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC >offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape >such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and >specifically to help make ‘Rights and the >Internet’ an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > >A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights > should be to clarify and reach greater > consensus on how Internet rights are defined, > how they relate to pre-existing definitions of > human rights, and which ones need to be > internationally recognized and strengthened. > There are currently basic philosophical > differences, even among civil society actors, > over what constitutes a right and whether human > rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. > > >The openness and diversity of the internet are >underpinned by widely recognized (but still >imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the >individual right to freedom of expression and to >privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the >internet may also extend to the area of positive >and collective rights – for instance a right to >Internet access, or a right of cultural >expression - including the right to have an >Internet in ones own language, which can inform >the important IGF thematic area of cultural >diversity. Others contest these positive and >collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights. > >Many important internet policy areas, like >network neutrality, are being framed in terms of >rights, such as a right to access and share >information, or as an extension of freedom of >expression itself. The right of the public to >access government-produced information presents >itself in a wholly new manner in a digital >environment, where information is often publicly >sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive >acts of withholding digital public information >from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a >form of censorship. All of these rights-based >conceptions may be included in the IGF openness >theme area. Other rights such as the right of >association and the right to political >participation may have important new >implications in the internet age, including the >right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. > >While the internet opens unprecedented economic, >social and political opportunities in many >areas, many fear that it may at the same time be >further widening economic, social and political >divides. It is for this reason that development >has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to >date. In this new, more global and digital >context it might be useful to explore what the >term "right to development" means. > >With respect to privacy rights, corporations and >governments are increasingly able to extend >digital tentacles into people’s homes and >personal devices, in manners invisible to >consumers and citizens.Consumers of digital >products thus face new challenges including the >right to know and completely ‘own’ the products >and services they pay for. Technological >measures to monitor and control user behavior on >the internet is becoming increasingly >sophisticated, and often outrun public policies >and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > >While property rights are of considerable >importance, their applicability and mutations in >the the digital environment have led to >widespread political contention over the proper >scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In >fact, intellectual property is emerging as a >primary area of socio-economic conflict in the >information society. The IGF can explore issues >surrounding the public interest principles which >underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to >access knowledge in the digital space. It can >also explore how individuals' property right to >own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, >computers and other forms of equipment can be >reconciled with the regulation of technical >circumvention to protect copyrights. > > > >We recognize that while it is relatively easy to >articulate and claim “rights” it is much more >difficult to implement and enforce them. We also >recognize that rights claims can sometimes >conflict or compete with each other. For >example, a claim that there is a “right to >Internet access” may imply an obligation on >states to fund and provide such access, but it >is likely that if states are responsible for >supplying internet access that there will also >be strong pressures on them to exert controls >over what content users can access using public >funds and facilities. There can also be >uncertainty about the proper application of a >rights claim to a factual situation. The change >in the technical methods of communication often >undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > > >These complexities, however, only strengthen the >case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and >debate these problems. There is no other global >forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > >Internet governance has up to this time largely >been founded in technical principles and, >increasingly, on the internet’s functionality as >a giant global marketplace. With the internet >becoming increasingly central to many social >and political institutions, an alternative >foundation and conceptual framework for IG can >be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus >that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. > > It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the > forum best suited to take up this task. This > process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, > where workshops on rights issues are being > planned. These issues will also hopefully > figure prominently in the main sessions. The > IGC fully expects that these discussions will > help the IGF work towards developing ‘Rights > and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > >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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 5 10:01:52 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:01:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809051213.m85CD3qf001405@mx1.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809051213.m85CD3qf001405@mx1.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215128@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ Milton I did ask you in an earlier email about how you consider property rights as real rights in the sense of being negative rights, in the complicated property systems that we have today (email enclosed). I enquired further how especially IPR, and even more so IPR in digital space, could be considered a negative right. In fact right to access knowledge (positioned against IPR in WIPO discussions) looks more of a negative right, and IPR a positive right. When I use an idea I can no way interfere with any other person's right to use it - though I may interfere with his state-aided scheme to make money out of it, which may be a socio-economic device to promote innovation etc, but I cant see it as a right, as rights go, especially in your restrictive definition. I am quite sympathetic to this line of thinking. In fact, I thought my amendments were designed to strengthen precisely that point. I tried to emphasize that people have natural property rights in the things (literally, physical objects such as computers) that they buy or build, and that these property rights can come into conflict sometimes with state-supported efforts to protect copyrights. (e.g., DMCA anti-circumvention) But we can also recognize a public interest in some kind of copyright and trademark and patent protection, so I modified the statement to read, "The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights." Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going to provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better make damn sure we are unified on this one. And now in your present set of amendments you have tried to make sure that there is no implication that IPR as a category of rights itself may be contested, changing the earlier text Completely wrong, as I said the modifications clarified and strengthened the language on contesting and exploring the scope of IPR. "While the 'right to property' has conventionally been considered of considerable importance, its applicability and mutations in the the digital environment, particularly in the form of Intellectual Property rights, is current being widely contested." to "While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents." Your sensitivity to any implications that IPR themselves may be problematic as rights Wrong again. First, I am claiming the territory of property rights as "our" space, and not conceding it to the copyright/trademark/patent interests. Second I am following Richard Stallman's important point that "intellectual property" as an umbrella term, somewhat dodgy, we need to be more specific about what kind of rights we are talking about, and that means Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks. In the original text there was another question - Are corporate entities entitled to rights as we understand the term? Now this is interesting. Another word for "corporate" might be "collective." For you to advance rights of ill-defined collectivities such as "cultures" and at the same time question any legal rights assigned to corporations is completely inconsistent. It is not inconsistent for an individualist however to view a formal corporate structure as a legal contracting party to which individuals assign or delegate specific rights, and which can act on their behalf. I think there is a lack of mutual understanding and appreciation of what we respectively mean by rights, and that over some deliberations it is possible for us to agree to a good extent. Yes, but this will only work if you are willing to accept a statement and viewpoints that are different from your own. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 10:25:21 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 19:55:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080904072928.020BBA6C1F@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080904072928.020BBA6C1F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, I am interested in editing this document. Please send me the link to the Google Documents. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Parminder wrote: > McTim > > > > > I want, as I think, as usual, the rhetoric is too strong. > > > McTim > > > > I have sent the link to you with right to edit the doc. > > > > Others who want to edit may also please ask. > > > > The draft as it stands can be seen below. > > > > Parminder > > > > *IGC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad.* > > * * > > *Review of the IGF* > > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, > within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN > Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is > regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another > consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of > the IGF. > > > > *Process of review * > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered > on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should > be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal > processes, apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond > IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for > different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. > > > > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present. > In this context, it is especially important to reach out more to > constituencies in developing counties. It is important to make special > efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development activity, > including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in > IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of > review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on > transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not > advisable to rely on a *pro bono* evaluation, by any agency that offers > it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected > experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and > policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may > be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do > the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even > if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be > adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to > ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should > feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. > > > > *Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure * > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of > the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond > its first mandated period of five years. > > > > The Caucus agrees with the mandate given to the IGF by TA. We understand > that the mandate is ambitious and complex, and a process of evolution > towards its complete fulfillment may be needed. However, it is important to > keep an eye on the full mandate as we go forward, and continuously make > progress in achieving in its letter and intent. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in > the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF > whereinputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Outcomes > from deliberations at the IGF can be used for global Internet policy making, > which will help make policy-making processes more participative and > democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for *"*development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional…. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to > note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape > [1]. > IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal > relationships with these initiatives. However, this should be done in a > manner that expands the multi-stakeholder nature of global internet policy > institutional framework rather than narrows it. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate > multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its > assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is already > becoming evident. It is important in this regard for the IGF to have a more > substantive inter-sessional work program rather than just of planning for > the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to > operate in substantive themes based Working Groups, and also incorporating > outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is > expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG > members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. This > useful start should be taken forward for more structured AND substantive > inter-sessional work. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have > stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of > special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such > funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of > the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional > activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the > IGF across geographies and social groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few > years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where > different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different > orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF > secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is > very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that > they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this > unique global institution. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > [1]To mention some of 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 > > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Fri Sep 5 10:42:14 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:42:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080905135530.7386D13FA56@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080905135530.7386D13FA56@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C8007@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Yes, we have done an initial mapping of initiatives that aim to set values-based standards or principles for communications environments. This was to feed into our own initiative, the Freedom of expression project, which aims to link a range of important communications policy issues to the international rights system and promote policy dialogue around them. You can download the paper at http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/mapping+existing+agreeme nts+and+principles (forgive the sketchy quality of the diagram!) The paper is only an initial attempt to map the field, and is intended as a rolling document to be added to and updated as we go along. So contributions from caucus members into this process would be very welcome...or comments and suggestions of how to make this or something similar a more useful tool for the caucus and wider IGF. I like the version of the Rights synthesis paper as it stands on the wiki at the moment. I agree that it's important to refer to the disagreements/different interpretations of rights that exist, and that this makes it all the more important that rights are explicitly on the agenda for discussion at the IGF. I wonder if there's also a way to stress that talking about building rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to companies and governments, but rather that rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. I'll have a think about that one...! Thanks, Lisa From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: 05 September 2008 14:54 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper hi milton, all in terms of defining rights.. just to remind (and apologies if i sound like a broken record) that several groups now have attempted to do this including APC, the BOR coalition, global partners, UNESCO, the work of the WSIS CS Human Rights caucus and the CRIS campaign so let's build on the collective work done this past 10 years or so if i recall correctly (lisa - please correct me if i'm wrong) - global partners put together a document that mapped such documents.. it might be useful to refer to that (and update if necessary) in this work i think we have a good chance of influencing the cairo agenda if we build this work carefully and inclusively (not to suggest we aren't already) over the next 6-12 months karen At 19:51 04/09/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90EBF.4EBACFA5" OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. Substantively, I tried to do two things: First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a bit. For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the goal of developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 5 14:26:32 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:26:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] re CIF References: Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D4FF0@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Hi YJ, I spoke to Diana Anius re the CIF and the panel you're interested in, she is not the lead on that session and is checking with them on whether there is space for you - I should hear back today or tomorrow... Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2199 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Sep 5 17:16:17 2008 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:16:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C8007@DATASRV.GLOBAL.loca l> References: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080905135530.7386D13FA56@mail.gn.apc.org> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C8007@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <20080905211755.36049140E5C@mail.gn.apc.org> hi lisa thanks karen >Yes, we have done an initial mapping of initiatives that aim to set >values-based standards or principles for communications >environments. This was to feed into our own initiative, the Freedom >of expression project, which aims to link a range of important >communications policy issues to the international rights system and >promote policy dialogue around them. You can download the paper at >http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/mapping+existing+agreements+and+principles >(forgive the sketchy quality of the diagram!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 4 20:56:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:56:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080905121302.E4517E0492@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48C083BB.7992C81F@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, I think such should read "Unfettered right to access to the Internet". Restricted rights to the Internet are not suficient. Parminder wrote: > Milton > > Some more stuff on your amendments. This has to do with your changes > to the part on IPR. > > In discussing ‘right to access the Internet’, you mention the > following. > > “There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical > methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings > of how to apply legal categories. “ > > I will like to use this formulation in my arguments regarding IPR. I > did ask you in an earlier email about how you consider property rights > as real rights in the sense of being negative rights, in the > complicated property systems that we have today (email enclosed). I > enquired further how especially IPR, and even more so IPR in digital > space, could be considered a negative right. In fact right to access > knowledge (positioned against IPR in WIPO discussions) looks more of a > negative right, and IPR a positive right. When I use an idea I can no > way interfere with any other person’s right to use it – though I may > interfere with his state-aided scheme to make money out of it, which > may be a socio-economic device to promote innovation etc, but I cant > see it as a right, as rights go, especially in your restrictive > definition. > > So, apart from the fact that you never answered whether you do not > consider right to education as a real right, I would also like to know > how you consider IPR as a real negative right. I especially ask > because first McTim removed the text on – are IPR real rights? Which > was only an exploratory question, given that a lot of civil society > really doesn’t consider IPR as a real right. And now in your present > set of amendments you have tried to make sure that there is no > implication that IPR as a category of rights itself may be contested, > changing the earlier text > > “While the ‘right to property’ has conventionally been considered of > considerable importance, its applicability and mutations in the the > digital environment, particularly in the form of Intellectual Property > rights, is current being widely contested.” > > to > > “While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents.” > > Your sensitivity to any implications that IPR themselves may be > problematic as rights, when in fact it is difficult to think of them > as negative rights, while putting in statement of doubts whether > positive and collective rights are even legitimate categories is > interesting, and does show that our views comes more from respective > political economy thinking rather than essentialist notions of what > may be rights and what not. > > In the original text there was another question - Are corporate > entities entitled to rights as we understand the term? I think McTim > removed it. What do you think of it? For someone so adamant that > rights can cohere only in individuals, such rights belonging not just > to collectives - who still are individuals, even if a bunch of them – > but to an abstract limited liability entity should be anathema. Why > would you not oppose IPRs, especially Corporate IPRs from the same > essentialist position that you oppose positive and collective rights? > > I think there is a lack of mutual understanding and appreciation of > what we respectively mean by rights, and that over some deliberations > it is possible for us to agree to a good extent. > > Parminder > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:22 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of > the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in > many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a > shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. > > Substantively, I tried to do two things: > > First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights > talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the > argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with > this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. > > Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent > and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to > privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a > bit. > > For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > IGC’s input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. > > ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a > global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use > information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet > stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must > protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of > expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." > However, little follow up work has been done to enact these > commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that ‘Rights and > the Internet’ be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and > that the IGF-4’s program be framed by the goal of developing a > rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus > has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was > sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of > Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a > discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make ‘Rights > and the Internet’ an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify > and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how > they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which > ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are > currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society > actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere > only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. > > The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, > conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of > positive and collective rights – for instance a right to Internet > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to > have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important > IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive > and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as > rights. > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where > information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. > Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens > in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these > rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme > area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to > political participation may have important new implications in the > internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of > globally applicable internet policies. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for > this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF > meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it > might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" > means. > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people’s homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and > citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges > including the right to know and completely ‘own’ the products and > services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control > user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, > and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what > rights users have. > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as > a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. > The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles > which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access > knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' > property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, > computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the > regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > “rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We > also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete > with each other. For example, a claim that there is a “right to > Internet access” may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide > such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for > supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on > them to exert controls over what content users can access using public > funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper > application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in > the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing > understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the > IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other > global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for > IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based > framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. > > It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take > up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully > expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards > developing ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of the > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 4 21:28:54 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:28:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation initiatives References: Message-ID: <48C08B56.947E08C@ix.netcom.com> Adam and all, I personally don't have a need for a "Study" however well meaning, to inform me that Self Regulation doesn't work. Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > The European Commission recently published a study assessing the > efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and > co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris > Marsden ) > > The study is available from European Commission > > > The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that > examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory institutions > and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer analysis. And a > second phase report providing the results of 21 short case studies. > Case studies were presented in four groupings: > > Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) > > Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) > > Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) > > Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social > Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) > > Total of all phases about 1300 pages. > > A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and > co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and > dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. > > Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago (3rd qtr 2007). > > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 4 21:30:25 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:30:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080904053809.92B7667818@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080905135530.7386D13FA56@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <48C08BB1.D965BE37@ix.netcom.com> Karen and all, Your correct. And your suggestion IMHO is a good one. karen banks wrote: > hi milton, all > > in terms of defining rights.. just to remind (and apologies if i sound > like a broken record) that several groups now have attempted to do > this including APC, the BOR coalition, global partners, UNESCO, the > work of the WSIS CS Human Rights caucus and the CRIS campaign > > so let's build on the collective work done this past 10 years or so > > if i recall correctly (lisa - please correct me if i'm wrong) - global > partners put together a document that mapped such documents.. it might > be useful to refer to that (and update if necessary) in this work > > i think we have a good chance of influencing the cairo agenda if we > build this work carefully and inclusively (not to suggest we aren't > already) over the next 6-12 months > > karen > > At 19:51 04/09/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90EBF.4EBACFA5" >> >> >> OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot >> of the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and >> awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary >> approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic >> improvements. >> >> Substantively, I tried to do two things: >> >> First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights >> talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the >> argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with >> this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. >> >> Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more >> coherent and structured manner. For example, there were scattered >> references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. >> and expand a bit. >> >> For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> IGC’s input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, > prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" >> />Hyderabad. >> >> ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in >> Egypt >> >> The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed >> a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use >> information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure >> Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter >> spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and >> freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of >> Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact >> these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that ‘Rights and >> the Internet’ be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and >> that the IGF-4’s program be framed by the goal of developing a >> rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The >> Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject >> which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet >> Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to >> shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help >> make ‘Rights and the Internet’ an overarching theme for IGF-4 in >> Egypt. >> >> A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet >> >> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify >> and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how >> they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which >> ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There >> are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil >> society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human >> rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to >> collectivities. >> >> >> The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely >> recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the >> individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, >> conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area >> of positive and collective rights – for instance a right to Internet >> access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to >> have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the >> important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest >> these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy >> goals but not as rights. >> >> Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are >> being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share >> information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The >> right of the public to access government-produced information >> presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, >> where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra >> cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from >> citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of >> these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness >> theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the >> right to political participation may have important new implications >> in the internet age, including the right to participate in the >> shaping of globally applicable internet policies. >> >> While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and >> political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the >> same time be further widening economic, social and political >> divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central >> theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and >> digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right >> to development" means. >> >> With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are >> increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people’s homes >> and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and >> citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges >> including the right to know and completely ‘own’ the products and >> services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control >> user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly >> sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional >> concepts of what rights users have. >> >> While property rights are of considerable importance, their >> applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led >> to widespread political contention over the proper scope of >> copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property >> is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the >> information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the >> public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept >> of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also >> explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use >> consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be >> reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect >> copyrights. >> >> >> >> We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and >> claim “rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce >> them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or >> compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a “right >> to Internet access” may imply an obligation on states to fund and >> provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible >> for supplying internet access that there will also be strong >> pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can >> access using public funds and facilities. There can also be >> uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a >> factual situation. The change in the technical methods of >> communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to >> apply legal categories. >> >> >> >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the >> IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no >> other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a >> non-binding context. >> >> >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >> technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet’s >> functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet >> becoming increasingly central to many social and political >> institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for >> IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a >> right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. >> >> It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to >> take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, >> where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues >> will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC >> fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards >> developing ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of >> the IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> >> 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 6 07:05:58 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:35:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Milton > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. I will not like to go with a statement issued on the behalf of IGC which says that "significant participants in CS . contest the positive and collectivist notions" of rights. The best I can agree to is as stated in the para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form considered basic, and established, rights, while we only speak of exploratory language about positive and collective rights vis a vis the Internet. You say that > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. Why not agree to the same logic in general about positive and collective rights. We are merely saying "It may also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be meaningful...." . Why do you object to it? I will give my reasons in some detail why I cannot accept text which clearly speaks of "significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions". I don't accept your simplistic argument that well, isn't it a fact that some people have cast doubts, so it is only saying what is a fact. Well, I know for fact that there people in CS space - there may be some security-obsessed people on this list, I certainly know there used to be one at least - who will say well, FOE and privacy rights needs to be carefully balanced with security concerns. And others will say they need to be balanced with child rights, cultural sensitivities etc etc. So, I ask you a simple and a direct question, which please reply to. If above views/doubts do get expressed by some people here, would you agree to a text, where after we mention FoE, we put the text that 'significant participants in CS want to ensure that FOE and privacy rights are appropriately balanced with security concerns, child rights, cultural sensitivities etc". No, you wont agree, right! You will contest such language, and I will agree to this contestation. Why is it so? Because we all know that security concerns etc are already dominant in IGF space, and CS needs to be bringing in the other perspective more strongly, and a language of balancing etc fatally weakens our case. So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about the very existence of the categories of positive and collective rights. A 'negative rights' understanding of rights is already dominant in the IG space, largely due to the dominance of Northern groups in the CS space, and very little involvement of Southern groups. I don't want an IGC statement to reinforce it. It will have a very detrimental impact on the struggles of those in the CS who are trying to open up spaces in the area of positive and collective rights, under very adverse and difficult circumstances. It would normally be fine for a CS group to make a statement representing a part view - or North -centric view - of rights. There can be all or any kinds of groups in the CS space. But my right in contesting this statement with text that challenges the very existence of the category of positive and collective rights comes from the fact that IGC has a global forum history in WSIS, and claims itself as a global IG CS space, with some kind of implied global legitimacy. Such a claim, in my view, is greatly strained by taking such one-sided view of human rights. I did surf the net a bit in last few hours and I could not find a single global human rights groups with any degree of really global participation which did not strongly endorse and work for positive and collective rights (If you know of any such group, you can please point it to me.) It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG discourse takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very cognizant that the ideological discourse of a 'brave new world' of an information society is already rigged greatly in such a regressive way, and I will not support IGC making a statement that helps this along. And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic logic with me that - well, the contestation within CS is only a statement of fact. >Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going to provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better make damn sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another email) While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a positive right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words of wisdom on why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. It may help you to know that every single civil society group I work with in India and in other developing countries will consider it anathema for a CS statement casting doubts on the very existence on positive and collective rights, and there will be, to use your words 'fanatical opposition'. Why aren't you concerned with this fanatical opposition, if you are at all concerned to keep the global CS legitimacy of the IGC. I am very much concerned on this count, and therefore oppose the text proposed by you. I can only agree to the following. (I have added another 'may' to my earlier text, to further 'weaken' the text on positive and collective rights) "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. Parminder _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:14 PM To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. Agreed. It is important to recognize that there are two important and different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC membership that really contests the very validity of the category of positive and collective rights. I invite members' comments on this statement. Accordingly, I don't think an IGC statement should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an expression of IGC. The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to access internet (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of 'wanting to explore' with regard to these rights. I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. "We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. " This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the Internet' and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. I however find the last two sentences - which I know you state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access - very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email. The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and identity. I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. "The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance." If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader, This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. You start with the area where there is the most common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already committed themselves to it, I think the line about balancing security concerns with other rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it can be taken. including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, which go beyond these two rights. Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the vast majority of people. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Sat Sep 6 09:50:26 2008 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:50:26 +0600 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080906134534.831CC698B0@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear Adam, Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's role in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case studies included only the mentioned institutions. Best regards, Hakik At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote: >Hi, > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing the >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris >Marsden ) > >The study is available from European Commission > > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four groupings: > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages. > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago (3rd qtr 2007). > >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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 6 11:09:27 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:39:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080905135530.7386D13FA56@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20080906150943.D9D92E0FFA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Karen >in terms of defining rights.. just to remind (and apologies if i sound like a broken record) that several groups now have attempted to do this including APC, the >BOR coalition, global partners, UNESCO, the work of the WSIS CS Human Rights caucus and the CRIS campaign >so let's build on the collective work done this past 10 years or so. The original draft proposed by me (enclosed) had a footnote 'To quote some existing initiatives here'. It got lost in subsequent edits. Yes, I agree these initiatives should be listed. It the list you provide fine? Parminder _____ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper hi milton, all in terms of defining rights.. just to remind (and apologies if i sound like a broken record) that several groups now have attempted to do this including APC, the BOR coalition, global partners, UNESCO, the work of the WSIS CS Human Rights caucus and the CRIS campaign so let's build on the collective work done this past 10 years or so if i recall correctly (lisa - please correct me if i'm wrong) - global partners put together a document that mapped such documents.. it might be useful to refer to that (and update if necessary) in this work i think we have a good chance of influencing the cairo agenda if we build this work carefully and inclusively (not to suggest we aren't already) over the next 6-12 months karen At 19:51 04/09/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90EBF.4EBACFA5" OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. Substantively, I tried to do two things: First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a bit. For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the goal of developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: input to syn paper - rights and the interent.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 23273 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input to syn paper - rights and the Internet.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38400 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 13:02:07 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:02:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance a right to Internet > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic > area of cultural diversity." > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by it's decentralized architecture which maximizes end users' power to choose, creat and use the hardware, software, and services that best meet their needs. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 14:08:12 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 23:38:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello McTim, Parminder, Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the internet are > underpinned by it's decentralized architecture which maximizes end > users' power to choose, creat and use the hardware, software, and > services that best meet their needs. > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > In this context, here is some thing to ponder: *"The Internet works by voluntary association of private parties—it's a Libertarian's dream. Individuals and companies run networks. They build them and sell (or give away) access to them to their customers, according to some business model. They then interconnect their networks with other companies' networks, either for free or for money. When the links are free, those are called "settlement-free interconnections" or "peering". When the interconnections are paid for by someone, these are called "transit". * * With no governing regulation, everyone connects to others, either for free or for money, whenever it is mutually beneficial. That's it. The whole story. It's a very simple, clear system. And It works.... out of this chaotic system a single, fully connected Internet has arisen: almost everyone can reach almost everyone else, almost all the time. The sheer value of the connected Internet forces providers to offer full connectivity to the rest of the Internet." - from http://www.renesys.com/blog/2005/12/peering_the_fundamental_archit.shtml * Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -- ISOC India Chennai. http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Sat Sep 6 14:10:41 2008 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:10:41 +0600 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080906180846.CF49169989@smtp1.electricembers.net> More or less agreed, but openness and diversity depend on a few other parameters as stated in the statement. Right to freedom of expression is part of them. Best regards, Hakik At 11:02 PM 9/6/2008, McTim wrote: >On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet ­ for instance a right to Internet > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic > > area of cultural diversity." > > > > > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > >Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the internet are >underpinned by it's decentralized architecture which maximizes end >users' power to choose, creat and use the hardware, software, and >services that best meet their needs. > > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >mctim.blogspot.com >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 14:37:23 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 00:07:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080906180846.CF49169989@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080906180846.CF49169989@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder and All, The topic proposed as the theme for the forthcoming IGF - "Rights" needs to be very very carefully worded, especially because the word "Rights" have varying connotations in diplomatic parlance. * There are two general concepts of rights, the idea of natural rights, which holds that we abtain certain rights from nature that cannot be legitimately modified by any legislative authority, and the idea of legal rights which holds that all rights are arbitrary, created by legislative authority and always subject to change. *At the IGF, the proponents of greater role for Governments would be prone to interpret the term "Rights" in the later context. *Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals or groups (for example, if one has a right to life, others cannot have the liberty to kill). *What if the proposed topic leads to a discussion on "Who is going to accord the rights and what mechanisms are needed (on the part of Governments) to guarantee the rights ? That would be contrary to the Internet Model which needs to be thoroughly understood, unambiguously by all parties to the debate on Governance. In other words, if not carefully worded or discussed, this topic of Rights would become a veiled topic of Controls that would go towards disturbing the essential characteristics of the Internet. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India. -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > More or less agreed, but openness and diversity depend on a few other > parameters as stated in the statement. Right to freedom of expression is > part of them. > > Best regards, > Hakik > > > At 11:02 PM 9/6/2008, McTim wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Parminder >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely >> > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the >> > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be >> > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be >> > meaningful in relation to the Internet ­ for instance a right to >> Internet >> > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have >> an >> > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF >> thematic >> > area of cultural diversity." >> > >> > >> > >> > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. >> >> Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the internet are >> underpinned by it's decentralized architecture which maximizes end >> users' power to choose, creat and use the hardware, software, and >> services that best meet their needs. >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> mctim.blogspot.com >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 5 17:40:25 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:40:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation References: <20080906134534.831CC698B0@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48C1A748.292FD4A8@ix.netcom.com> Hakikur and all, Institutions are often times out of touch with users. Self regulation or Co-regutlation if in order to be reflective, effective, and useful must have at it's base, the approval of individual users. Therefore individual users, must have a direct input and determination of the process for developing such regimes or whatever regulation policies are to be set, or otherwise imposed. The will of the governed must prevail. Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Dear Adam, > > Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a > researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding > infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's role > in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case studies > included only the mentioned institutions. > > Best regards, > Hakik > > At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote: > >Hi, > > > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing the > >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and > >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris > >Marsden ) > > > >The study is available from European Commission > > > > > > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that > >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory > >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer > >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 > >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four groupings: > > > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) > > > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) > > > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) > > > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social > >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) > > > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages. > > > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and > >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and > >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. > > > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago (3rd qtr 2007). > > > >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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 5 17:45:56 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:45:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48C1A894.C2079C28@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, See below McTims remarks/response... McTim wrote: > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance a right to Internet > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic > > area of cultural diversity." > > > > > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > > Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the internet are > underpinned by it's decentralized architecture which maximizes end > users' power to choose, creat and use the hardware, software, and > services that best meet their needs. I agree in theroy. But as you may know, much of this hardware and software, and to a lessor extent, services is being mitigated by different legal regimes. Ergo, users are finding it more and more difficult to use or even find such that best, if at all, meet their needs. I believe this trend may be short, but that reality is not yet evident. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 5 17:55:09 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:55:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20080906180846.CF49169989@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48C1AABC.35C37B73@ix.netcom.com> Sivasubramanian and all, Very much agree here, Sivasubramanian! >:) Of course, the only nearly universally "Natural Rights" are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In my country these "Rights" are called "Inalienable Rights". Even access to the Internet would not likely fall in the category of "Natural Rights"/"Inalienable Rights". Nor would freedom or expression in the use of the Internet. But this should not dissuade or discourage including other "Rights" in a "Internet Bill of Rights". Yet it should be understood that Nation states will have to approve such if such rights are ever to be realized, and/or recognized. A daunting task, yes. But still doable. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Parminder and All, > > The topic proposed as the theme for the forthcoming IGF - "Rights" > needs to be very very carefully worded, especially because the word > "Rights" have varying connotations in diplomatic parlance. > > There are two general concepts of rights, the idea of natural rights, > which holds that we abtain certain rights from nature that cannot be > legitimately modified by any legislative authority, and the idea of > legal rights which holds that all rights are arbitrary, created by > legislative authority and always subject to change. > > At the IGF, the proponents of greater role for Governments would be > prone to interpret the term "Rights" in the later context. > > Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, > they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals > or groups (for example, if one has a right to life, others cannot have > the liberty to kill). > > What if the proposed topic leads to a discussion on "Who is going to > accord the rights and what mechanisms are needed (on the part of > Governments) to guarantee the rights ? That would be contrary to the > Internet Model which needs to be thoroughly understood, unambiguously > by all parties to the debate on Governance. > > In other words, if not carefully worded or discussed, this topic of > Rights would become a veiled topic of Controls that would go towards > disturbing the essential characteristics of the Internet. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India. > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Hakikur Rahman > wrote: > > More or less agreed, but openness and diversity depend on a > few other parameters as stated in the statement. Right to > freedom of expression is part of them. > > Best regards, > Hakik > > At 11:02 PM 9/6/2008, McTim wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are > underpinned by widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) > basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to > privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and > collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet ­ for > instance a right to Internet > > access, or a right of cultural expression - > including the right to have an > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform > the important IGF thematic > > area of cultural diversity." > > > > > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this > or not. > > Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the > internet are > underpinned by it's decentralized architecture > which maximizes end > users' power to choose, creat and use the > hardware, software, and > services that best meet their needs. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > > ___________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Sep 6 16:42:02 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 06:42:02 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7D2095EF1EAB4A2B98AA398548479D78@IAN> The word underpinned seems to be the problem here rather than the overall paragraph. Can I suggest > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to > Internet > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have > an > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF > thematic > > area of cultural diversity." (happy to discuss an alternative word or two 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: 07 September 2008 03:02 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to > Internet > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have > an > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF > thematic > > area of cultural diversity." > > > > > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > > Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the internet are > underpinned by it's decentralized architecture which maximizes end > users' power to choose, creat and use the hardware, software, and > services that best meet their needs. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 5 20:12:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:12:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7D2095EF1EAB4A2B98AA398548479D78@IAN> Message-ID: <48C1CAD0.A1CBFA4B@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, I agree with all except: " ( But still imperfictly enforced ) " and "including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." And suggest: " ( But rarely adaquately enforced ) " And strike - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language and replace with: including a right to cultural diversity, and to the extent any culture can itself effect, such expressed in that culture's native languages" Ian Peter wrote: > The word underpinned seems to be the problem here rather than the overall > paragraph. Can I suggest > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to > > Internet > > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have > > an > > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF > > thematic > > > area of cultural diversity." > > (happy to discuss an alternative word or two 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: 07 September 2008 03:02 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Cc: Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Parminder > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to > > Internet > > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have > > an > > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF > > thematic > > > area of cultural diversity." > > > > > > > > > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > > > > Not really. IMO, the openness and diversity of the internet are > > underpinned by it's decentralized architecture which maximizes end > > users' power to choose, creat and use the hardware, software, and > > services that best meet their needs. > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > mctim.blogspot.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 5 20:33:02 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:33:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080906110613.14A866996A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48C1CFBE.519D1BD4@ix.netcom.com> Parminder and all, Try to remember, there is no "Balance" between security and privacy. Ben Franklin said it far better than I can: "“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Parminder wrote: > Milton > > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are > significant participants in CS who contest the positive and > collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > I will not like to go with a statement issued on the behalf of IGC > which says that “significant participants in CS contest the positive > and collectivist notions” of rights. The best I can agree to is as > stated in the para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form > considered basic, and established, rights, while we only speak of > exploratory language about positive and collective rights vis a vis > the Internet. > > You say that > > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think > it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. > > Why not agree to the same logic in general about positive and > collective rights. We are merely saying “It may also be useful to > explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful ” .. Why do you object to it? > > I will give my reasons in some detail why I cannot accept text which > clearly speaks of “significant participants in CS who contest the > positive and collectivist notions”. I don’t accept your simplistic > argument that well, isn’t it a fact that some people have cast doubts, > so it is only saying what is a fact. Well, I know for fact that there > people in CS space - there may be some security-obsessed people on > this list, I certainly know there used to be one at least - who will > say well, FOE and privacy rights needs to be carefully balanced with > security concerns. And others will say they need to be balanced with > child rights, cultural sensitivities etc etc. > > So, I ask you a simple and a direct question, which please reply to. > If above views/doubts do get expressed by some people here, would you > agree to a text, where after we mention FoE, we put the text that > ‘significant participants in CS want to ensure that FOE and privacy > rights are appropriately balanced with security concerns, child > rights, cultural sensitivities etc”. No, you wont agree, right! You > will contest such language, and I will agree to this contestation. Why > is it so? Because we all know that security concerns etc are already > dominant in IGF space, and CS needs to be bringing in the other > perspective more strongly, and a language of balancing etc fatally > weakens our case. > > So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about > the very existence of the categories of positive and collective > rights. A ‘negative rights’ understanding of rights is already > dominant in the IG space, largely due to the dominance of Northern > groups in the CS space, and very little involvement of Southern > groups. I don’t want an IGC statement to reinforce it. It will have a > very detrimental impact on the struggles of those in the CS who are > trying to open up spaces in the area of positive and collective > rights, under very adverse and difficult circumstances. > > It would normally be fine for a CS group to make a statement > representing a part view – or North –centric view – of rights. There > can be all or any kinds of groups in the CS space. But my right in > contesting this statement with text that challenges the very existence > of the category of positive and collective rights comes from the fact > that IGC has a global forum history in WSIS, and claims itself as a > global IG CS space, with some kind of implied global legitimacy. Such > a claim, in my view, is greatly strained by taking such one-sided view > of human rights. I did surf the net a bit in last few hours and I > could not find a single global human rights groups with any degree of > really global participation which did not strongly endorse and work > for positive and collective rights (If you know of any such group, you > can please point it to me.) > > It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other > excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human > rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it > exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG > discourse takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very > cognizant that the ideological discourse of a ‘brave new world’ of an > information society is already rigged greatly in such a regressive > way, and I will not support IGC making a statement that helps this > along. > > And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and > implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic > logic with me that – well, the contestation within CS is only a > statement of fact. > > >Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going > to provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better > make damn sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another > email) > > While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a > positive right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words > of wisdom on why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. > It may help you to know that every single civil society group I work > with in India and in other developing countries will consider it > anathema for a CS statement casting doubts on the very existence on > positive and collective rights, and there will be, to use your words > ’fanatical opposition’. Why aren’t you concerned with this fanatical > opposition, if you are at all concerned to keep the global CS > legitimacy of the IGC. I am very much concerned on this count, and > therefore oppose the text proposed by you. > > I can only agree to the following. (I have added another ‘may’ to my > earlier text, to further ‘weaken’ the text on positive and collective > rights) > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance a right to > Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.” > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > > Parminder > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:14 PM > To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would > expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this > process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. > > Agreed. > > It is important to recognize that there are two important > and different contestations here. One, whether there is at > all a category of positive and collective rights in any case > whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very small > minority among the IGC membership that really contests the > very validity of the category of positive and collective > rights. I invite members’ comments on this statement. > Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement should go out > casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of > rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of > the statement removed. > > But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. > And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up > this discussion more or less from my point of view. Based on > the list dialogue this would look like almost a 50-50 > division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a > significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and if > the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and > issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your > statement as an expression of IGC. > > The second contestation is about whether there are some > already accepted extensions of positive and collective > rights to the Internet – right to access internet (positive > right) and right to cultural expression or an Internet in > ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there > may not be enough consensus in this group at present to > assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring > them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for > mentioning the language of ‘wanting to explore’ with regard > to these rights. > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, > I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested > issues. > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned > by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic > human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression > and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and > whether positive and collective rights are meaningful in > relation to the Internet – for instance a right to Internet > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can > inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural > diversity.” > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there > are significant participants in CS who contest the positive > and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > “We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate > and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to implement > and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can > sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, > a claim that there is a “right to Internet access” may imply > an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but > it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying > internet access that there will also be strong pressures on > them to exert controls over what content users can access > using public funds and facilities. There can also be > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim > to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods > of communication often undermines pre-existing > understandings of how to apply legal categories. “ > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right to > the Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those who > speak for it. I would delete the whole para. > > So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access > cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think > the only thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that > if states are responsible" with "some fear that if states > are responsible." That makes it clear that there is > disagreement. which there is. > > I however find the last two sentences – which I know you > state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access – very > interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss > my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email. > > The last two sentences were meant to be general, not > specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle > applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and > identity. > > I also have problem with the new opening para that you > propose. > > “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it > reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, > receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that > "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and > security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must > protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom > of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva > Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work > has been done to enact these commitments to basic human > rights in Internet governance.” > > If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read > as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very > important rights, our effort is to explore the rights > terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the > possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be > globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy > discussions also lies in making the rights discourse > broader, > > This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of > principle. You start with the area where there is the most > common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is > that governments have already committed themselves to it, I > think the line about balancing security concerns with other > rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive > terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional > rights and then move gradually into how far it can be > taken. > > including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of > people, which go beyond these two rights. > > Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for > the vast majority 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 6 20:12:39 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:12:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Why is it impossible for anyone to accept reality: i.e., that certain things are contested? Are these concepts so weak that they crumble when we stop pretending that no one disagrees with them? ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:06 AM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Milton > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. I will not like to go with a statement issued on the behalf of IGC which says that "significant participants in CS ... contest the positive and collectivist notions" of rights. The best I can agree to is as stated in the para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form considered basic, and established, rights, while we only speak of exploratory language about positive and collective rights vis a vis the Internet. You say that > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. Why not agree to the same logic in general about positive and collective rights. We are merely saying "It may also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be meaningful............" . Why do you object to it? I will give my reasons in some detail why I cannot accept text which clearly speaks of "significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions". I don't accept your simplistic argument that well, isn't it a fact that some people have cast doubts, so it is only saying what is a fact. Well, I know for fact that there people in CS space - there may be some security-obsessed people on this list, I certainly know there used to be one at least - who will say well, FOE and privacy rights needs to be carefully balanced with security concerns. And others will say they need to be balanced with child rights, cultural sensitivities etc etc. So, I ask you a simple and a direct question, which please reply to. If above views/doubts do get expressed by some people here, would you agree to a text, where after we mention FoE, we put the text that 'significant participants in CS want to ensure that FOE and privacy rights are appropriately balanced with security concerns, child rights, cultural sensitivities etc". No, you wont agree, right! You will contest such language, and I will agree to this contestation. Why is it so? Because we all know that security concerns etc are already dominant in IGF space, and CS needs to be bringing in the other perspective more strongly, and a language of balancing etc fatally weakens our case. So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about the very existence of the categories of positive and collective rights. A 'negative rights' understanding of rights is already dominant in the IG space, largely due to the dominance of Northern groups in the CS space, and very little involvement of Southern groups. I don't want an IGC statement to reinforce it. It will have a very detrimental impact on the struggles of those in the CS who are trying to open up spaces in the area of positive and collective rights, under very adverse and difficult circumstances. It would normally be fine for a CS group to make a statement representing a part view - or North -centric view - of rights. There can be all or any kinds of groups in the CS space. But my right in contesting this statement with text that challenges the very existence of the category of positive and collective rights comes from the fact that IGC has a global forum history in WSIS, and claims itself as a global IG CS space, with some kind of implied global legitimacy. Such a claim, in my view, is greatly strained by taking such one-sided view of human rights. I did surf the net a bit in last few hours and I could not find a single global human rights groups with any degree of really global participation which did not strongly endorse and work for positive and collective rights (If you know of any such group, you can please point it to me.) It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG discourse takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very cognizant that the ideological discourse of a 'brave new world' of an information society is already rigged greatly in such a regressive way, and I will not support IGC making a statement that helps this along. And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic logic with me that - well, the contestation within CS is only a statement of fact. >Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going to provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better make damn sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another email) While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a positive right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words of wisdom on why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. It may help you to know that every single civil society group I work with in India and in other developing countries will consider it anathema for a CS statement casting doubts on the very existence on positive and collective rights, and there will be, to use your words 'fanatical opposition'. Why aren't you concerned with this fanatical opposition, if you are at all concerned to keep the global CS legitimacy of the IGC. I am very much concerned on this count, and therefore oppose the text proposed by you. I can only agree to the following. (I have added another 'may' to my earlier text, to further 'weaken' the text on positive and collective rights) "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. Parminder ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:14 PM To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. Agreed. It is important to recognize that there are two important and different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC membership that really contests the very validity of the category of positive and collective rights. I invite members' comments on this statement. Accordingly, I don't think an IGC statement should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an expression of IGC. The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to access internet (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of 'wanting to explore' with regard to these rights. I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. "We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. " This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the Internet' and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. I however find the last two sentences - which I know you state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access - very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email. The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and identity. I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. "The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance." If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader, This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. You start with the area where there is the most common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already committed themselves to it, I think the line about balancing security concerns with other rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it can be taken. including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, which go beyond these two rights. Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the vast majority of people. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 6 03:14:57 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:14:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C22DF0.60E75FE0@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, I sense your frustration and share in it. I don't have a good answer to your question that would be of certain fact. I can only surmise that nearly any concept or idea in respect to "Rights" in particular, is as you rightly say, contestable. And as I stated some weeks ago, any set of "Rights: that the IGC comes up with must be able to stand up to very in depth and significantly forcible contesting. But that the some folks are not or have not fought those battles or are far to young and unaware of history enough to recognize that when espousing such "Rights" and the necessary enforcement of same, requires a huge and long term effort ( decades at least ). Many that are willing to espouse are not willing to fight, or even perhaps give their very lives for those rights to which they espouse to, to be unequivocally and legally recognized. For this reason and some significant experiance I myself have had for such similar rights, I again go back to Ben Franklin, “Words may show a man's wit but actions his meaning.” Milton L Mueller wrote: > Why is it impossible for anyone to accept reality: i.e., that certain > things are contested? > > Are these concepts so weak that they crumble when we stop pretending > that no one disagrees with them? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:06 AM > To:Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > Milton > > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are > significant participants in CS who contest the positive and > collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > I will not like to go with a statement issued on the behalf of IGC > which says that “significant participants in CS contest the positive > and collectivist notions” of rights. The best I can agree to is as > stated in the para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form > considered basic, and established, rights, while we only speak of > exploratory language about positive and collective rights vis a vis > the Internet. > > You say that > > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think > it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. > > Why not agree to the same logic in general about positive and > collective rights. We are merely saying “It may also be useful to > explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful ” . Why do you object to it? > > I will give my reasons in some detail why I cannot accept text which > clearly speaks of “significant participants in CS who contest the > positive and collectivist notions”. I don’t accept your simplistic > argument that well, isn’t it a fact that some people have cast doubts, > so it is only saying what is a fact. Well, I know for fact that there > people in CS space - there may be some security-obsessed people on > this list, I certainly know there used to be one at least - who will > say well, FOE and privacy rights needs to be carefully balanced with > security concerns. And others will say they need to be balanced with > child rights, cultural sensitivities etc etc. > > So, I ask you a simple and a direct question, which please reply to. > If above views/doubts do get expressed by some people here, would you > agree to a text, where after we mention FoE, we put the text that > ‘significant participants in CS want to ensure that FOE and privacy > rights are appropriately balanced with security concerns, child > rights, cultural sensitivities etc”. No, you wont agree, right! You > will contest such language, and I will agree to this contestation. Why > is it so? Because we all know that security concerns etc are already > dominant in IGF space, and CS needs to be bringing in the other > perspective more strongly, and a language of balancing etc fatally > weakens our case. > > So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about > the very existence of the categories of positive and collective > rights. A ‘negative rights’ understanding of rights is already > dominant in the IG space, largely due to the dominance of Northern > groups in the CS space, and very little involvement of Southern > groups. I don’t want an IGC statement to reinforce it. It will have a > very detrimental impact on the struggles of those in the CS who are > trying to open up spaces in the area of positive and collective > rights, under very adverse and difficult circumstances. > > It would normally be fine for a CS group to make a statement > representing a part view – or North –centric view – of rights. There > can be all or any kinds of groups in the CS space. But my right in > contesting this statement with text that challenges the very existence > of the category of positive and collective rights comes from the fact > that IGC has a global forum history in WSIS, and claims itself as a > global IG CS space, with some kind of implied global legitimacy. Such > a claim, in my view, is greatly strained by taking such one-sided view > of human rights. I did surf the net a bit in last few hours and I > could not find a single global human rights groups with any degree of > really global participation which did not strongly endorse and work > for positive and collective rights (If you know of any such group, you > can please point it to me.) > > It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other > excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human > rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it > exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG > discourse takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very > cognizant that the ideological discourse of a ‘brave new world’ of an > information society is already rigged greatly in such a regressive > way, and I will not support IGC making a statement that helps this > along. > > And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and > implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic > logic with me that – well, the contestation within CS is only a > statement of fact. > > >Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going > to provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better > make damn sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another > email) > > While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a > positive right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words > of wisdom on why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. > It may help you to know that every single civil society group I work > with in India and in other developing countries will consider it > anathema for a CS statement casting doubts on the very existence on > positive and collective rights, and there will be, to use your words > ’fanatical opposition’. Why aren’t you concerned with this fanatical > opposition, if you are at all concerned to keep the global CS > legitimacy of the IGC. I am very much concerned on this count, and > therefore oppose the text proposed by you. > > I can only agree to the following. (I have added another ‘may’ to my > earlier text, to further ‘weaken’ the text on positive and collective > rights) > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance a right to > Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.” > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > > Parminder > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From:Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:14 PM > To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would > expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this > process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. > > Agreed. > > It is important to recognize that there are two important > and different contestations here. One, whether there is at > all a category of positive and collective rights in any case > whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very small > minority among the IGC membership that really contests the > very validity of the category of positive and collective > rights. I invite members’ comments on this statement. > Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement should go out > casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of > rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of > the statement removed. > > But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. > And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up > this discussion more or less from my point of view. Based on > the list dialogue this would look like almost a 50-50 > division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a > significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and if > the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and > issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your > statement as an expression of IGC. > > The second contestation is about whether there are some > already accepted extensions of positive and collective > rights to the Internet – right to access internet (positive > right) and right to cultural expression or an Internet in > ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there > may not be enough consensus in this group at present to > assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring > them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for > mentioning the language of ‘wanting to explore’ with regard > to these rights. > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, > I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested > issues. > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned > by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic > human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression > and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and > whether positive and collective rights are meaningful in > relation to the Internet – for instance a right to Internet > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can > inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural > diversity.” > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there > are significant participants in CS who contest the positive > and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > “We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate > and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to implement > and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can > sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, > a claim that there is a “right to Internet access” may imply > an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but > it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying > internet access that there will also be strong pressures on > them to exert controls over what content users can access > using public funds and facilities. There can also be > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim > to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods > of communication often undermines pre-existing > understandings of how to apply legal categories. “ > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right to > the Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those who > speak for it. I would delete the whole para. > > So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access > cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think > the only thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that > if states are responsible" with "some fear that if states > are responsible." That makes it clear that there is > disagreement. which there is. > > I however find the last two sentences – which I know you > state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access – very > interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss > my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email. > > The last two sentences were meant to be general, not > specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle > applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and > identity. > > I also have problem with the new opening para that you > propose. > > “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it > reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, > receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that > "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and > security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must > protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom > of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva > Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work > has been done to enact these commitments to basic human > rights in Internet governance.” > > If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read > as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very > important rights, our effort is to explore the rights > terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the > possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be > globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy > discussions also lies in making the rights discourse > broader, > > This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of > principle. You start with the area where there is the most > common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is > that governments have already committed themselves to it, I > think the line about balancing security concerns with other > rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive > terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional > rights and then move gradually into how far it can be > taken. > > including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of > people, which go beyond these two rights. > > Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for > the vast majority 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Sep 7 03:13:28 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:13:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080905074243.73099E0401@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080905074243.73099E0401@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080907071328.GA28520@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:12:28PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > membership that really contests the very validity of the category of > positive and collective rights. I'm not sure what "validity" means here, but I find the term "positive right" useful and meaningful. That does not imply endorsement of such rights, but of the term - indeed, I find it useful primarily in indicating that some rights need more or different justification and analysis than others (like, who pays). I have no fundamental objection to positive rights, as long as their meaning is clear enough, and in particular that it is made explicit whether a right is intended to be positive or negative. As for collective rights, my main gripe is that the meaning is unclear. The term has been used for, at least, (1) rights that are accorded to individuals because of their membership in a certain group (e.g., age limits on right to education). (2) rights that are meaningful only for (sufficiently large) groups (right to use one's language makes no sense if nobody else speaks or understands it). (3) rights individuals are _deprived_ of because of group membership, or, groups' (power holders') right to deprive their members of rights these would otherwise have had (say, restricting womens' rights on religious grounds). (4) legal rights explicitly assigned to legal entities other than individuals. I'm sure there are other meanings, too. Note, however, that the first two can be treated as individual rights without any loss of substance - only the justification is collective there. So, I think one should be clearer what exactly is meant when a right is called collective. > The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted > extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to > access internet (positive right) The (to me) obvious meaning of "right to access Internet" would not be a positive but a negative right - but it can easily be either: positive if it means state (or someone else) is obligated to provide the (financial) means for it, negative if it is understood like freedom of expression, that nobody may prevent you from accessing the Internet if you can afford it. Both could well be argued for, but the meaning should be made clear. > and right to cultural expression or an > Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I'm not sure why these should be called collective rights. Obviously both culture and language are collective in the sense of (2) above, but, as noted, such rights effectively belong to individuals anyway. If the intended implication is (3), i.e., that cultural reasons could allow overriding some individual rights, that should be made clear. > "[...] It may also be > useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic > area of cultural diversity." That has rather too many hidden or ambiguous meanings for my liking. First, it sounds like "meaningful" is used as an endorsement; obviously the term "positive right" is meaningful, but that doesn't mean any positive right is good or useful. Second, the examples given imply or hint things about those rights that are not at all obvious, like whether right to Internet access should be positive or negative (cf. next point below), and what "collective" means. In particular I fear the possibility that "cultural rights" could be used to restrict freedom of expression. > "[...] For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may > imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access [...]" > This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the Internet' > and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete > the whole para. As noted, you were in effect adding the opposite point above. Whether "right to Internet access" should be interpreted as positive or negative right is important, and should be made clear, not just implied with examples. Or, if no consensus can be found, it can be left open, but then neither position should be endorsed or hinted at with hard-to-decipher wording. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Sep 7 03:17:39 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:17:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C38013.4010905@wzb.eu> Hi, > I will not like to go with a statement issued on the behalf of IGC which > says that “significant participants in CS … contest the positive and > collectivist notions” of rights. The best I can agree to is as stated in > the para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form considered > basic, and established, rights, while we only speak of exploratory > language about positive and collective rights vis a vis the Internet. I can live with the language proposed by Parminder as a compromise. > > > So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about the > very existence of the categories of positive and collective rights. A > ‘negative rights’ understanding of rights is already dominant in the IG > space, largely due to the dominance of Northern groups in the CS space, > and very little involvement of Southern groups. I don’t want an IGC > statement to reinforce it. It will have a very detrimental impact on the > struggles of those in the CS who are trying to open up spaces in the > area of positive and collective rights, under very adverse and difficult > circumstances. > > > > It would normally be fine for a CS group to make a statement > representing a part view – or North –centric view – of rights. The way I see it is that we struggle to express views this diverse group can agree upon. Your division of North and South doesn't quite work for this list. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy also supports what you call a North-centric view. To me it seems that you hold an advocacy-oriented view to rights where the desired goals have become part of the definition. This is what I don't support. jeanette > > It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other > excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human > rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it > exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG > discourse takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very > cognizant that the ideological discourse of a ‘brave new world’ of an > information society is already rigged greatly in such a regressive way, > and I will not support IGC making a statement that helps this along. > > > > And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and > implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic > logic with me that – well, the contestation within CS is only a > statement of fact. > > > >>Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going to > provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better make > damn sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another email) > > > > While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a positive > right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words of wisdom on > why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. It may help > you to know that every single civil society group I work with in India > and in other developing countries will consider it anathema for a CS > statement casting doubts on the very existence on positive and > collective rights, and there will be, to use your words ’fanatical > opposition’. Why aren’t you concerned with this fanatical opposition, if > you are at all concerned to keep the global CS legitimacy of the IGC. I > am very much concerned on this count, and therefore oppose the text > proposed by you. > > > > I can only agree to the following. (I have added another ‘may’ to my > earlier text, to further ‘weaken’ the text on positive and collective > rights) > > > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance a right to > Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right > to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important > IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.” > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > *Sent:* Friday, September 05, 2008 7:14 PM > *To:* Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I > have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of > engagement and deliberation is very useful. > > > > Agreed. > > > > It is important to recognize that there are two important and > different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a > category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > membership that really contests the very validity of the category of > positive and collective rights. I invite members’ comments on this > statement. Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement should go out > casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I > would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. > > > > But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it is > not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion more > or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this would > look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small > minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, > and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and > issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your > statement as an expression of IGC. > > > > > > The second contestation is about whether there are some already > accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the > Internet – right to access internet (positive right) and right to > cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a > collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus in > this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak > of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am > for mentioning the language of ‘wanting to explore’ with regard to > these rights. > > > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think > it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. > > > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to > privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive > and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet – > for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of > cultural diversity.” > > > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are > significant participants in CS who contest the positive and > collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > > > > > “We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and > claim “rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or > compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a “right > to Internet access” may imply an obligation on states to fund and > provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible > for supplying internet access that there will also be strong > pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can > access using public funds and facilities. There can also be > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a > factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to > apply legal categories. “ > > > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right to the > Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. > I would delete the whole para. > > > > So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot > be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only thing > you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are > responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That > makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. > > > > I however find the last two sentences – which I know you state in > terms of meaningfulness of universal access – very interesting in > terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR > paragraph in a separate email. > > > > The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to > universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of > issues, especially privacy and identity. > > > > I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. > > “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed > a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use > information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure > Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter > spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and > freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of > Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact > these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance.” > > > > If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE > and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, > our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued > in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may > at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related > policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader, > > > > This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. You > start with the area where there is the most common ground. The point > about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already > committed themselves to it, I think the line about balancing > security concerns with other rights is especially important. Even on > your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the > traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it can be > taken. > > > > including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, > which go beyond these two rights. > > > > Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the > vast majority 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Sep 7 03:27:06 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:27:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080905121302.E4517E0492@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080905121302.E4517E0492@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080907072706.GB28520@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 05:42:34PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > I did ask [Milton] in an earlier email about how you consider property > rights as real rights in the sense of being negative rights, in the > complicated property systems that we have today (email enclosed). I > enquired further how especially IPR, and even more so IPR in digital > space, could be considered a negative right. I don't like the concept "intellectual property" at all, as it implies similarities with property that really don't apply. One of them is that most of "IPR" are quite clearly positive rights - indeed in effect limitations of Freedom of Expression. > In fact right to access knowledge (positioned against IPR in > WIPO discussions) looks more of a negative right, and IPR a positive right. > When I use an idea I can no way interfere with any other person's right to > use it - though I may interfere with his state-aided scheme to make money > out of it, which may be a socio-economic device to promote innovation etc, > but I cant see it as a right, as rights go, especially in your restrictive > definition. Yes. IPR are legal, positive rights, and access to knowledge can be interpreted as a negative right. > In the original text there was another question - Are corporate entities > entitled to rights as we understand the term? They certainly aren't entitled to human rights! I would further argue that any rights they have are mere derivatives of their owners' (or in some cases, employees') rights. That is another reason I am suspicious of the term "collective rights". -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 7 03:51:31 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:51:31 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: NomCom for Appeals Team Message-ID: <518E1BD30D4444A0B0175500E9761E45@IAN> The Nomcom random selection is now complete. The chosen five, as per the formula below, are: 23 Gao Mosweu 15 Solomon Gizaw 1 Jeremy Malcolm 2 Jeffrey A Williams 20 Thomas Lowenhaupt David Goldstein, as independent NomCom Chair, will now be contacting the people above to urgently clarify their contact details, willingness to accept, and other necessary verification so this can continue. Should any candidate be unable to participate, the next name on the list is Anriette Esterhuysen. The seed sources for random number selection were taken from the Sept 6 drawing of the following lotteries: http://www.lotto.ie/ Lotto number w/o the bonus number 8 17 30 33 36 43 http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/home/home.do lotto w/o bonus number 4 6 9 13 35 36 http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_numbers.asp powerball number w/o powerball number 17 25 26 49 54 run of the program phoenix-2:rfc3797-process avri$ ./random-order Type size of pool: warning: this program uses gets(), which is unsafe. (or 'exit' to exit) 28 Type number of items to be selected: (or 'exit' to exit) 10 Approximately 23.7 bits of entropy needed. Type #1 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. 8 17 30 33 36 43 8 17 30 33 36 43 Type #2 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. 4 6 9 13 35 36 4 6 9 13 35 36 Type #3 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. 17 25 26 49 54 17 25 26 49 54 Type #4 randomness or 'end' followed by new line. Up to 16 integers or the word 'float' followed by up to 16 x.y format reals. end Key is: 8.17.30.33.36.43./4.6.9.13.35.36./17.25.26.49.54./ index hex value of MD5 div selected 1 CC3E4362B1AC97DEB6840D04549B372E 28 -> 23 <- 2 E2B72566C047566536FE37820335D79D 27 -> 15 <- 3 9CEF8DC6442D82BE5DB7826D294FF476 26 -> 1 <- 4 8DB4BB14ADE3B13E39B10CF302746852 25 -> 2 <- 5 8F014C71F01BC337CC20C66437CDB4D0 24 -> 20 <- 6 F1DA350BC58E8CE1D34B2EA0AFDE3DFD 23 -> 10 <- 7 55FAE1AD6F226FFB4326CE58A85B7797 22 -> 18 <- 8 C41D3213E068A18CBDF89B4FFE9D837D 21 -> 8 <- 9 7B44BE3A28446376C2AAC98D5FB7AFC5 20 -> 9 <- 10 CD9E7BAFC608CC7D6C6AAFAAD2F5B398 19 -> 12 <- Ian Peter _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 03 September 2008 08:02 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: NomCom Pool for Apeals Team announcement The period for establishment of the Nomcom pool for Appeals Team is now closed. The pool from which five NomCom members will be selected is 1. Jeremy Malcolm 2. Jeffrey A Williams 3. Fouad Bajwa 4. Mark Costa 5. Adam Peake 6. Timothy McGinnis (McTim) 7. Gurumurthy Kasinathan 8. Hong Xue 9. William Drake 10. Anriette Esterhuysen 11. Rafik Dammak 12. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 13. Philippe Dam 14. Jeanette Hofmann 15. Solomon Gizaw 16. Pavel P Antonov 17. Dave Kissoondoyal 18. Shaila Mistry Rao 19. Jacques Berleur 20. Thomas Lowenhaupt 21. Izumi Aizu 22. Tapani Tarvainen 23. Gao Mosweu 24. Tricia Wang 25. Lisa Horner 26. Sergio Salinas Porto 27. Rudi Rusdiah 28. Danny Butt Please note there were also a small number of volunteers who were not IGC members. Much though their offer was appreciated, they have not been able to be included on this list. The list is now complete and will be frozen 48 hours from now. Anyone who urgently feels their name has been inadvertently left out, and who desperately wants to be added, must contact me by email within this 48 hour period. The random selection procedure will use the code documented in RFC 3797 "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection". The selection will take place on September 6 and results will be announced shortly thereafter. The seed sources for random number selection will be taken from the Sept 6 drawing of the following lotteries: http://www.lotto.ie/ Lotto number w/o the bonus number http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/home/home.do lotto w/o bonus number http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_numbers.asp powerball number w/o powerball number Anyone who wishes to extract the code from the RFC and collect the same seeds will be able to produce the same results and verify the results. After the results are announced, there will be a 48 hour period before the nomcom starts its work to allow members who may wish to do so, to run the procedure to verify the results and for the chair of the nomcom to confirm the willingness of those selected to serve. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 7 05:31:01 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 15:01:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080907071328.GA28520@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20080907093120.155F1A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Tapani > I'm not sure what "validity" means here, but I find the term > "positive right" useful and meaningful. That does not imply > endorsement of such rights, but of the term - indeed, I find > it useful primarily in indicating that some rights need more or > different justification and analysis than others (like, who pays). There is no doubt that negative and positive rights need different analysis, that if why we use these categories. As for 'who pays' I never thought that there is ever any doubt about it - positive rights are claims against the collective of the political community which in most cases is the nation state, and that's who pays. This is always the case, I know of no other form of positive rights. > I'm sure there are other meanings, too. > Note, however, that the first two can be treated as individual > rights without any loss of substance - only the justification > is collective there. > > So, I think one should be clearer what exactly is meant > when a right is called collective. It covers 1-3 of your list and a little more as well. The meaning in which the term is used is quite well-established to be generally understood in the right meaning. There are many scholarly works available on the subject but I am referring an article on the concept of collective rights in practice in India. (pl see http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF36.htm ) We use it in the term in its generally understood meaning in the rights discourse. > The (to me) obvious meaning of "right to access Internet" would not > be a positive but a negative right - but it can easily be either: > positive if it means state (or someone else) is obligated to > provide the (financial) means for it, negative if it is understood > like freedom of expression, that nobody may prevent you from accessing > the Internet if you can afford it. > Both could well be argued for, but the meaning should be made clear. It is used in the positive rights sense - in equivalence to right to education. If it makes it clear I can change it to 'right to the Internet' - that makes it clearer. > First, it sounds like "meaningful" is used as an endorsement; > obviously the term "positive right" is meaningful, but that > doesn't mean any positive right is good or useful. When we say " It may also be > > useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are > > meaningful in relation to the Internet" We are being as exploratory as one can. Beyond this, it will be positively doubting it. In particular I fear the possibility that > "cultural rights" could be used to restrict freedom of expression. > Yes, we all fear so. Some fears are associated with all rights. No text can address all concerns completely. We have already spoken more strongly about FoE earlier in the statement. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 12:43 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:12:28PM +0530, Parminder > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > > membership that really contests the very validity of the category of > > positive and collective rights. > > I'm not sure what "validity" means here, but I find the term > "positive right" useful and meaningful. That does not imply > endorsement of such rights, but of the term - indeed, I find > it useful primarily in indicating that some rights need more or > different justification and analysis than others (like, who pays). > > I have no fundamental objection to positive rights, as long > as their meaning is clear enough, and in particular that > it is made explicit whether a right is intended to be > positive or negative. > > As for collective rights, my main gripe is that the meaning > is unclear. The term has been used for, at least, > (1) rights that are accorded to individuals because of their > membership in a certain group (e.g., age limits on right to education). > (2) rights that are meaningful only for (sufficiently large) > groups (right to use one's language makes no sense if nobody > else speaks or understands it). > (3) rights individuals are _deprived_ of because of group > membership, or, groups' (power holders') right to deprive > their members of rights these would otherwise have had > (say, restricting womens' rights on religious grounds). > (4) legal rights explicitly assigned to legal entities > other than individuals. > > I'm sure there are other meanings, too. > Note, however, that the first two can be treated as individual > rights without any loss of substance - only the justification > is collective there. > > So, I think one should be clearer what exactly is meant > when a right is called collective. > > > The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted > > extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to > > access internet (positive right) > > The (to me) obvious meaning of "right to access Internet" would not > be a positive but a negative right - but it can easily be either: > positive if it means state (or someone else) is obligated to > provide the (financial) means for it, negative if it is understood > like freedom of expression, that nobody may prevent you from accessing > the Internet if you can afford it. > Both could well be argued for, but the meaning should be made clear. > > > and right to cultural expression or an > > Internet in ones own language (a collective right). > > I'm not sure why these should be called collective rights. > Obviously both culture and language are collective in the > sense of (2) above, but, as noted, such rights effectively > belong to individuals anyway. > If the intended implication is (3), i.e., that cultural > reasons could allow overriding some individual rights, > that should be made clear. > > > "[...] It may also be > > useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to > Internet > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have > an > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF > thematic > > area of cultural diversity." > > That has rather too many hidden or ambiguous meanings for my liking. > > First, it sounds like "meaningful" is used as an endorsement; > obviously the term "positive right" is meaningful, but that > doesn't mean any positive right is good or useful. > > Second, the examples given imply or hint things about those rights > that are not at all obvious, like whether right to Internet access > should be positive or negative (cf. next point below), and what > "collective" means. In particular I fear the possibility that > "cultural rights" could be used to restrict freedom of expression. > > > "[...] For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" > may > > imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access [...]" > > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the > Internet' > > and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would > delete > > the whole para. > > As noted, you were in effect adding the opposite point above. > > Whether "right to Internet access" should be interpreted as > positive or negative right is important, and should be made > clear, not just implied with examples. > Or, if no consensus can be found, it can be left open, but > then neither position should be endorsed or hinted at with > hard-to-decipher wording. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 7 05:54:18 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 15:24:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Input on 'review of the IGF' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080907095505.ECABAA6C5F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All While we are discussing 'rights and the Internet' document, please also look at the proposed draft for the other input on 'review of the IGF'. Its current form on google docs is as follows. Parminder IGC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present. In this context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies in developing counties. It is important to make special efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development activity, including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. We understand that the mandate of the Tunis Agenda is ambitious and complex, and a process of evolution towards its fulfillment may be needed. However, it is important to keep an eye on the full mandate as we go forward, and continuously make progress in achieving in its letter and intent. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape [1]. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. _____ [1] To mention some of them. _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 7 06:26:08 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 15:56:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A00C8007@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <20080907102625.37F1F6992B@smtp1.electricembers.net> Lisa >I wonder if there's also a way to stress that talking about building rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to >companies and governments, but rather that rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > >help to inform complex policy decisions. I'll have a think about that one.! I have added the following para to the document, in its closing part. "A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to governments or companies, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices." Parminder _____ From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:12 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Hi Yes, we have done an initial mapping of initiatives that aim to set values-based standards or principles for communications environments. This was to feed into our own initiative, the Freedom of expression project, which aims to link a range of important communications policy issues to the international rights system and promote policy dialogue around them. You can download the paper at http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/mapping+existing+agreements+ and+principles (forgive the sketchy quality of the diagram!) The paper is only an initial attempt to map the field, and is intended as a rolling document to be added to and updated as we go along. So contributions from caucus members into this process would be very welcome.or comments and suggestions of how to make this or something similar a more useful tool for the caucus and wider IGF. I like the version of the Rights synthesis paper as it stands on the wiki at the moment. I agree that it's important to refer to the disagreements/different interpretations of rights that exist, and that this makes it all the more important that rights are explicitly on the agenda for discussion at the IGF. I wonder if there's also a way to stress that talking about building rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to companies and governments, but rather that rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. I'll have a think about that one.! Thanks, Lisa From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: 05 September 2008 14:54 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper hi milton, all in terms of defining rights.. just to remind (and apologies if i sound like a broken record) that several groups now have attempted to do this including APC, the BOR coalition, global partners, UNESCO, the work of the WSIS CS Human Rights caucus and the CRIS campaign so let's build on the collective work done this past 10 years or so if i recall correctly (lisa - please correct me if i'm wrong) - global partners put together a document that mapped such documents.. it might be useful to refer to that (and update if necessary) in this work i think we have a good chance of influencing the cairo agenda if we build this work carefully and inclusively (not to suggest we aren't already) over the next 6-12 months karen At 19:51 04/09/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90EBF.4EBACFA5" OK, I just made some extensive edits to the rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was editorial, there was redundancy and awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic improvements. Substantively, I tried to do two things: First, make it clearer that the definition and application of rights talk is contested and complicated -- and use that to bolster the argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt. In line with this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. Second, group and expand certain discussions to run in a more coherent and structured manner. For example, there were scattered references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single para. and expand a bit. For those not on the Google docs list I append the statement below Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org IGC's input -1 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance. The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the goal of developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can also be assigned to collectivities. The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as rights. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk Sun Sep 7 13:08:30 2008 From: j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk (Jonathan Cave) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:08:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation In-Reply-To: <48C1A748.292FD4A8@ix.netcom.com> References: <20080906134534.831CC698B0@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48C1A748.292FD4A8@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <200809071708.m87H8WRf017627@mail-relay-4.csv.warwick.ac.uk> A couple of brief comments, if I may: The study was intended to help the EU take self- and co-regulation into account in ex ante evaluation and impact assessment of policies, not to give a comprehensive survey or assessment of selfreg in general, any specific institution, etc. To do so, we selected case studies to span the issues and features relevant to policy assessment. The study was not 'well-meaning' in the sense implied and served no political agenda. In addition to the mapping (phase 1) and case study (phase 2) parts, the final report includes conceptual/theoretical analysis and a framework for setting up impact assessments and deciding how (if at all) to incorporate self-reg into telecom policy. See also the Ofcom consultation on the subject (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/co-reg/promoting_effective_coregulation/). We certainly recognised and endorsed the value of wide participation, and the potential advantages of selfreg in terms of access to accurate information, realistic and recogniseably meaningful recommendations, lower enforcement costs and (sometimes) higher compliance. But we also recognised potential pitfalls,such as the tendency of selfreg bodies, especially those accorded regulatory forbearance, to serve their members' interests rather than the public interest, and the very real possibility that they might be set up as (or might become) 'Potemkin regulators' that serve to deter or pre-empt more stringent or effective control measures (by accident, evolution or design). But it's a bit simplistic to say that it 'doesn't work' even if the implication that formal command and control regulation 'does work' was not intended. agenda creep, regulatory capture, and disconnection between ostensible and effective regulatory agendas are pretty pervasive. Also, we used the term to refer to regulatory actions undertaken (in whole or in part) by non-state actors, not by one or another 'side' of an issue or market. The analytic part of the study draws attention to multistakeholder 'selfreg' organisations (e/g/ consumer counsels and some WSIS bodies), to selfreg bodies whose constraints fall at other places in the value chain (e.g. insurance self-reg) and to powersharing arrangements between government, business and civil society bodies (species of 'co-regulation'). Formal regulators get captured by industry interests just as easily, and their formalised mechanisms of accountability and transparency have all-too-evident limitations. At least with a selfreg body, participation can be voluntary (though there are cases where the 'insiders' either block the entry of others or compel outsiders' comp[liance with the standards, codes, etc. they choose.). With government bodies, it's much harder to vote with your feet. Finally, while end users' input can be valuable, there is a fairly obvious tension between openness and efficacy, and end-users, like all other players, are vulnerable to manipulation from prophets of doom and of redemption alike. Cheers, Jonathan At 22:40 05/09/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >Hakikur and all, > > Institutions are often times out of touch with users. Self regulation >or Co-regutlation if in order to be reflective, effective, and useful >must have at it's base, the approval of individual users. Therefore >individual users, must have a direct input and determination of the >process for developing such regimes or whatever regulation policies >are to be set, or otherwise imposed. The will of the governed must >prevail. > >Hakikur Rahman wrote: > > > Dear Adam, > > > > Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a > > researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding > > infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's role > > in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case studies > > included only the mentioned institutions. > > > > Best regards, > > Hakik > > > > At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing the > > >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and > > >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris > > >Marsden ) > > > > > >The study is available from European Commission > > > 2006_05/index_en.htm> > > > > > > > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that > > >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory > > >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer > > >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 > > >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four groupings: > > > > > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) > > > > > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) > > > > > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) > > > > > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social > > >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) > > > > > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages. > > > > > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and > > >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and > > >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. > > > > > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago (3rd > qtr 2007). > > > > > >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 > >Regards, > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >=============================================================== >Updated 1/26/04 >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun Sep 7 15:23:05 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 21:23:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internationalization of email addresses completed Message-ID: <20080907192305.GA14424@sources.org> Since we often talk about internationalization... Three new RFCs have been published on friday. They (almost) finalize the standards for the internationalization of email addresses (email content in Unicode is standard since 1992). Soon :-) I'll be able to use stéphane at bortzmeyer.fr with the accent. Congratulations for the EAI Working Group. Now, we can say that almost all the IETF standards are Unicode-able. (The main missing one is FTP, which has an option TEXT which is only for ASCII. An Unicode version is under work.) RFC 5335 Title: Internationalized Email Headers Author: Y. Abel, Ed. Status: Experimental Date: September 2008 Mailbox: abelyang at twnic.net.tw Pages: 14 Characters: 27945 Updates: RFC2045, RFC2822 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-12.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5335.txt Full internationalization of electronic mail requires not only the capabilities to transmit non-ASCII content, to encode selected information in specific header fields, and to use non-ASCII characters in envelope addresses. It also requires being able to express those addresses and the information based on them in mail header fields. This document specifies an experimental variant of Internet mail that permits the use of Unicode encoded in UTF-8, rather than ASCII, as the base form for Internet email header field. This form is permitted in transmission only if authorized by an SMTP extension, as specified in an associated specification. This specification Updates section 6.4 of RFC 2045 to conform with the requirements. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. RFC 5336 Title: SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Addresses Author: J. Yao, Ed., W. Mao, Ed. Status: Experimental Date: September 2008 Mailbox: yaojk at cnnic.cn, maowei_ietf at cnnic.cn Pages: 22 Characters: 48110 Updates: RFC2821, RFC2822, RFC4952 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5336.txt This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header information. Communication with systems that do not implement this specification is specified in another document. This document updates some syntaxes and rules defined in RFC 2821 and RFC 2822, and has some material updating RFC 4952This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. RFC 5337 Title: Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications Author: C. Newman, A. Melnikov, Ed. Status: Experimental Date: September 2008 Mailbox: chris.newman at sun.com, Alexey.Melnikov at isode.com Pages: 18 Characters: 36324 Updates: RFC3461, RFC3464, RFC3798 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-dsn-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5337.txt Delivery status notifications (DSNs) are critical to the correct operation of an email system. However, the existing Draft Standards (RFC 3461, RFC 3462, RFC 3464) are presently limited to US-ASCII text in the machine-readable portions of the protocol. This specification adds a new address type for international email addresses so an original recipient address with non-US-ASCII characters can be correctly preserved even after downgrading. This also provides updated content return media types for delivery status notifications and message disposition notifications to support use of the new address type. This document experimentally extends RFC 3461, RFC 3464, and RFC 3798. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Sun Sep 7 15:37:24 2008 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 21:37:24 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Internationalization of email addresses completed In-Reply-To: <20080907192305.GA14424@sources.org> References: <20080907192305.GA14424@sources.org> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F028C638D@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Stefan, Will that means that we, who use "Å, Ä, and Ö) and many other different signs or letters in an additional common alphabet, can use our different signs? My last name is: Nordström and I live in a community called Lidingö can I use those signs? Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Skickat: den 7 september 2008 21:23 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Internationalization of email addresses completed Since we often talk about internationalization... Three new RFCs have been published on friday. They (almost) finalize the standards for the internationalization of email addresses (email content in Unicode is standard since 1992). Soon :-) I'll be able to use stéphane at bortzmeyer.fr with the accent. Congratulations for the EAI Working Group. Now, we can say that almost all the IETF standards are Unicode-able. (The main missing one is FTP, which has an option TEXT which is only for ASCII. An Unicode version is under work.) RFC 5335 Title: Internationalized Email Headers Author: Y. Abel, Ed. Status: Experimental Date: September 2008 Mailbox: abelyang at twnic.net.tw Pages: 14 Characters: 27945 Updates: RFC2045, RFC2822 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-12.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5335.txt Full internationalization of electronic mail requires not only the capabilities to transmit non-ASCII content, to encode selected information in specific header fields, and to use non-ASCII characters in envelope addresses. It also requires being able to express those addresses and the information based on them in mail header fields. This document specifies an experimental variant of Internet mail that permits the use of Unicode encoded in UTF-8, rather than ASCII, as the base form for Internet email header field. This form is permitted in transmission only if authorized by an SMTP extension, as specified in an associated specification. This specification Updates section 6.4 of RFC 2045 to conform with the requirements. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. RFC 5336 Title: SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Addresses Author: J. Yao, Ed., W. Mao, Ed. Status: Experimental Date: September 2008 Mailbox: yaojk at cnnic.cn, maowei_ietf at cnnic.cn Pages: 22 Characters: 48110 Updates: RFC2821, RFC2822, RFC4952 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5336.txt This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header information. Communication with systems that do not implement this specification is specified in another document. This document updates some syntaxes and rules defined in RFC 2821 and RFC 2822, and has some material updating RFC 4952This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. RFC 5337 Title: Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications Author: C. Newman, A. Melnikov, Ed. Status: Experimental Date: September 2008 Mailbox: chris.newman at sun.com, Alexey.Melnikov at isode.com Pages: 18 Characters: 36324 Updates: RFC3461, RFC3464, RFC3798 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-dsn-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5337.txt Delivery status notifications (DSNs) are critical to the correct operation of an email system. However, the existing Draft Standards (RFC 3461, RFC 3462, RFC 3464) are presently limited to US-ASCII text in the machine-readable portions of the protocol. This specification adds a new address type for international email addresses so an original recipient address with non-US-ASCII characters can be correctly preserved even after downgrading. This also provides updated content return media types for delivery status notifications and message disposition notifications to support use of the new address type. This document experimentally extends RFC 3461, RFC 3464, and RFC 3798. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Jag använder gratisversionen av SPAMfighter för privata användare. 60 spam har blivit blockerade hittills. Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post. Hämta gratis SPAMfighter här: http://www.spamfighter.com/lsv ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 7 15:38:11 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 05:38:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] Internationalization of email addresses completed In-Reply-To: <20080907192305.GA14424@sources.org> Message-ID: That's really good news, Stephane! Thanks for bringing it to the list's attention 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > Sent: 08 September 2008 05:23 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Internationalization of email addresses completed > > Since we often talk about internationalization... > > Three new RFCs have been published on friday. They (almost) finalize > the standards for the internationalization of email addresses (email > content in Unicode is standard since 1992). Soon :-) I'll be able to > use stéphane at bortzmeyer.fr with the accent. Congratulations for the > EAI Working Group. > > Now, we can say that almost all the IETF standards are > Unicode-able. > > (The main missing one is FTP, which has an option TEXT which is only > for ASCII. An Unicode version is under work.) > > RFC 5335 > > Title: Internationalized Email Headers > Author: Y. Abel, Ed. > Status: Experimental > Date: September 2008 > Mailbox: abelyang at twnic.net.tw > Pages: 14 > Characters: 27945 > Updates: RFC2045, RFC2822 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-12.txt > > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5335.txt > > Full internationalization of electronic mail requires not only the > capabilities to transmit non-ASCII content, to encode selected > information in specific header fields, and to use non-ASCII > characters in envelope addresses. It also requires being able to > express those addresses and the information based on them in mail > header fields. This document specifies an experimental variant of > Internet mail that permits the use of Unicode encoded in UTF-8, > rather than ASCII, as the base form for Internet email header field. > This form is permitted in transmission only if authorized by an SMTP > extension, as specified in an associated specification. This > specification Updates section 6.4 of RFC 2045 to conform with the > requirements. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet > community. > > This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization > Working Group of the IETF. > > > > RFC 5336 > > Title: SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email > Addresses > Author: J. Yao, Ed., > W. Mao, Ed. > Status: Experimental > Date: September 2008 > Mailbox: yaojk at cnnic.cn, > maowei_ietf at cnnic.cn > Pages: 22 > Characters: 48110 > Updates: RFC2821, RFC2822, RFC4952 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13.txt > > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5336.txt > > This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery > of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header > information. Communication with systems that do not implement this > specification is specified in another document. This document > updates some syntaxes and rules defined in RFC 2821 and RFC 2822, and > has some material updating RFC 4952This memo defines an Experimental > Protocol for the Internet community. > > This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization > Working Group of the IETF. > > > > RFC 5337 > > Title: Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition > Notifications > Author: C. Newman, A. Melnikov, Ed. > Status: Experimental > Date: September 2008 > Mailbox: chris.newman at sun.com, > Alexey.Melnikov at isode.com > Pages: 18 > Characters: 36324 > Updates: RFC3461, RFC3464, RFC3798 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-dsn-06.txt > > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5337.txt > > Delivery status notifications (DSNs) are critical to the correct > operation of an email system. However, the existing Draft Standards > (RFC 3461, RFC 3462, RFC 3464) are presently limited to US-ASCII text > in the machine-readable portions of the protocol. This specification > adds a new address type for international email addresses so an > original recipient address with non-US-ASCII characters can be > correctly preserved even after downgrading. This also provides > updated content return media types for delivery status notifications > and message disposition notifications to support use of the new > address type. > > This document experimentally extends RFC 3461, RFC 3464, and RFC > 3798. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet > community. > > This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization > Working Group of the IETF. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun Sep 7 16:12:15 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 22:12:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Internationalization of email addresses completed In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F028C638D@ensms02.iris.se> References: <20080907192305.GA14424@sources.org> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F028C638D@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20080907201215.GA15922@sources.org> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 09:37:24PM +0200, Kicki Nordström wrote a message of 132 lines which said: > Will that means that we, who use "Å, Ä, and Ö) and many other > different signs or letters in an additional common alphabet, can use > our different signs? In the future, yes, kicki.nordström at lidingö.se will work. In the future because what is now completed is just the standardization step. Software authors now have to program (it is partly done, see ) and providers have to deploy it. Because of experience with other deployments, we should be patient. Unicode in the email body is standard for sixteen years and there are still sometimes problems with non-ASCII characters. Unicode in domain names is standard for five years and is still not in the ICANN root (same thing for many TLD). The standards are just the first step! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 6 19:20:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:20:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080905074243.73099E0401@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080907071328.GA28520@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <48C3103C.2EB0C42D@ix.netcom.com> Tapani and all, Nicely articulated! I for one agree completely with your remarks and statements below, Tapani. I am more than relatively sure our INEGroup members do as well, but I'll check to be sure. It is unmistakably sure that making what "Rights" are clear and concise as you rightly stated, IMO. Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:12:28PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > > membership that really contests the very validity of the category of > > positive and collective rights. > > I'm not sure what "validity" means here, but I find the term > "positive right" useful and meaningful. That does not imply > endorsement of such rights, but of the term - indeed, I find > it useful primarily in indicating that some rights need more or > different justification and analysis than others (like, who pays). > > I have no fundamental objection to positive rights, as long > as their meaning is clear enough, and in particular that > it is made explicit whether a right is intended to be > positive or negative. > > As for collective rights, my main gripe is that the meaning > is unclear. The term has been used for, at least, > (1) rights that are accorded to individuals because of their > membership in a certain group (e.g., age limits on right to education). > (2) rights that are meaningful only for (sufficiently large) > groups (right to use one's language makes no sense if nobody > else speaks or understands it). > (3) rights individuals are _deprived_ of because of group > membership, or, groups' (power holders') right to deprive > their members of rights these would otherwise have had > (say, restricting womens' rights on religious grounds). > (4) legal rights explicitly assigned to legal entities > other than individuals. > > I'm sure there are other meanings, too. > Note, however, that the first two can be treated as individual > rights without any loss of substance - only the justification > is collective there. > > So, I think one should be clearer what exactly is meant > when a right is called collective. > > > The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted > > extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to > > access internet (positive right) > > The (to me) obvious meaning of "right to access Internet" would not > be a positive but a negative right - but it can easily be either: > positive if it means state (or someone else) is obligated to > provide the (financial) means for it, negative if it is understood > like freedom of expression, that nobody may prevent you from accessing > the Internet if you can afford it. > Both could well be argued for, but the meaning should be made clear. > > > and right to cultural expression or an > > Internet in ones own language (a collective right). > > I'm not sure why these should be called collective rights. > Obviously both culture and language are collective in the > sense of (2) above, but, as noted, such rights effectively > belong to individuals anyway. > If the intended implication is (3), i.e., that cultural > reasons could allow overriding some individual rights, > that should be made clear. > > > "[...] It may also be > > useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet > > access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an > > Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic > > area of cultural diversity." > > That has rather too many hidden or ambiguous meanings for my liking. > > First, it sounds like "meaningful" is used as an endorsement; > obviously the term "positive right" is meaningful, but that > doesn't mean any positive right is good or useful. > > Second, the examples given imply or hint things about those rights > that are not at all obvious, like whether right to Internet access > should be positive or negative (cf. next point below), and what > "collective" means. In particular I fear the possibility that > "cultural rights" could be used to restrict freedom of expression. > > > "[...] For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may > > imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access [...]" > > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the Internet' > > and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete > > the whole para. > > As noted, you were in effect adding the opposite point above. > > Whether "right to Internet access" should be interpreted as > positive or negative right is important, and should be made > clear, not just implied with examples. > Or, if no consensus can be found, it can be left open, but > then neither position should be endorsed or hinted at with > hard-to-decipher wording. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 6 19:35:29 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:35:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48C38013.4010905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48C313C1.CC6579F9@ix.netcom.com> Jeanette and all, I for one don't know what a “significant participants in CS" is or how such could be reasonably or accurately defined. I agree if I understand you right Jeanette, that advocacy-oriented groups as a goal as part of the definition is not agreeable either. If however these advocacy-oriented groups are in agreement with such goals as a definition of what "Rights" should be included, than my view could and likely should be changed at that point. Presently I don't know that to be the case. But still it is good that Parminder included such, as likely as not, we may not ever know reasonably know if such agreement is recognized. One thing is for certain, the WTO is not now, and is unlikely to be in agreement with what Parminder describes as "Collective Rights", and for better or worse, I am in agreement with the WTO as such. No group of any sort should have or be considered to have extra-ordinary rights that an individual doesn't have. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > > I will not like to go with a statement issued on the behalf of IGC which > > says that “significant participants in CS contest the positive and > > collectivist notions” of rights. The best I can agree to is as stated in > > the para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form considered > > basic, and established, rights, while we only speak of exploratory > > language about positive and collective rights vis a vis the Internet. > > I can live with the language proposed by Parminder as a compromise. > > > > > > > So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about the > > very existence of the categories of positive and collective rights. A > > ‘negative rights’ understanding of rights is already dominant in the IG > > space, largely due to the dominance of Northern groups in the CS space, > > and very little involvement of Southern groups. I don’t want an IGC > > statement to reinforce it. It will have a very detrimental impact on the > > struggles of those in the CS who are trying to open up spaces in the > > area of positive and collective rights, under very adverse and difficult > > circumstances. > > > > > > > > It would normally be fine for a CS group to make a statement > > representing a part view – or North –centric view – of rights. > > The way I see it is that we struggle to express views this diverse group > can agree upon. Your division of North and South doesn't quite work for > this list. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy also supports what you call a > North-centric view. > To me it seems that you hold an advocacy-oriented view to rights where > the desired goals have become part of the definition. This is what I > don't support. > jeanette > > > > > It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other > > excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human > > rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it > > exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG > > discourse takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very > > cognizant that the ideological discourse of a ‘brave new world’ of an > > information society is already rigged greatly in such a regressive way, > > and I will not support IGC making a statement that helps this along. > > > > > > > > And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and > > implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic > > logic with me that – well, the contestation within CS is only a > > statement of fact. > > > > > > > >>Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going to > > provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better make > > damn sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another email) > > > > > > > > While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a positive > > right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words of wisdom on > > why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. It may help > > you to know that every single civil society group I work with in India > > and in other developing countries will consider it anathema for a CS > > statement casting doubts on the very existence on positive and > > collective rights, and there will be, to use your words ’fanatical > > opposition’. Why aren’t you concerned with this fanatical opposition, if > > you are at all concerned to keep the global CS legitimacy of the IGC. I > > am very much concerned on this count, and therefore oppose the text > > proposed by you. > > > > > > > > I can only agree to the following. (I have added another ‘may’ to my > > earlier text, to further ‘weaken’ the text on positive and collective > > rights) > > > > > > > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance a right to > > Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right > > to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important > > IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.” > > > > > > > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > *Sent:* Friday, September 05, 2008 7:14 PM > > *To:* Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I > > have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of > > engagement and deliberation is very useful. > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > It is important to recognize that there are two important and > > different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a > > category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. > > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > > membership that really contests the very validity of the category of > > positive and collective rights. I invite members’ comments on this > > statement. Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement should go out > > casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I > > would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. > > > > > > > > But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it is > > not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion more > > or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this would > > look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small > > minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, > > and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and > > issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your > > statement as an expression of IGC. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second contestation is about whether there are some already > > accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the > > Internet – right to access internet (positive right) and right to > > cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a > > collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus in > > this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak > > of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am > > for mentioning the language of ‘wanting to explore’ with regard to > > these rights. > > > > > > > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think > > it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. > > > > > > > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > > rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to > > privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive > > and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet – > > for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural > > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of > > cultural diversity.” > > > > > > > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are > > significant participants in CS who contest the positive and > > collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > > > > > > > > > > > “We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and > > claim “rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce > > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or > > compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a “right > > to Internet access” may imply an obligation on states to fund and > > provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible > > for supplying internet access that there will also be strong > > pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can > > access using public funds and facilities. There can also be > > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a > > factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to > > apply legal categories. “ > > > > > > > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right to the > > Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. > > I would delete the whole para. > > > > > > > > So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot > > be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only thing > > you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are > > responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That > > makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. > > > > > > > > I however find the last two sentences – which I know you state in > > terms of meaningfulness of universal access – very interesting in > > terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR > > paragraph in a separate email. > > > > > > > > The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to > > universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of > > issues, especially privacy and identity. > > > > > > > > I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. > > > > “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed > > a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use > > information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure > > Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter > > spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and > > freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the > > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of > > Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact > > these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance.” > > > > > > > > If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE > > and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, > > our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued > > in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may > > at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related > > policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader, > > > > > > > > This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. You > > start with the area where there is the most common ground. The point > > about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already > > committed themselves to it, I think the line about balancing > > security concerns with other rights is especially important. Even on > > your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the > > traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it can be > > taken. > > > > > > > > including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, > > which go beyond these two rights. > > > > > > > > Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the > > vast majority 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 6 19:47:49 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:47:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation References: <20080906134534.831CC698B0@smtp1.electricembers.net><48C1A748.292FD4A8@ix.netcom.com> <465914659-1220777109-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1630575657-@bxe101.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <48C316A5.6670A25F@ix.netcom.com> Ecase and all, Good political language used in your response here. But hardly clarifies my concern and other remarks to the extent of what and how individuals would be effected or otherwise required to comply. Ergo, more general language would be preferrable, and yet again I still fully assert that self regulation or co-regulation doesn't work, and never has for any significant period of time. Although I prefer self regulation of an individual basis, I dispise it on a collective basis or organizational basis unless of course I personally agree with whatever regulation that may apply! >:) Governments as you know from your own countries history, as with mine, rarely always adhere to their own regulations, and in some instances some certain exepmtions to such regulation is granted or otherwise "Understood". Same is even more true for NGO's or other advocacy oriented groups. ecsae at mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote: > Two comments, if I may: the purpose of the study was to help the EC to take self- and co-reg into account in future ex ante evaluation, impact assessment and policy formation, not to comprehensively survey or evaluate the status quo, so ITU and other specific stakeholders - even important ones - are not all there. The intent was rather to use the cases to indicate the range of initiatives and the classes of things the EC should consider. > > Second, we strongly support wide partcipation and the need for standing and voice to encourage useful engagement, but recognise both the tension between wide participation and the efficacy of the organisation (relevance, coherence and levels of compliance) and the potential of such platforms to encourage strategic or collusive behaviour, to further hidden agendas or to use self-reg to create "Potemkin regulators" in order to pre-empt real action - intentionally or otherwise. > > J. > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" > > Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:40:25 > To: > Subject: Re: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation > > Hakikur and all, > > Institutions are often times out of touch with users. Self regulation > or Co-regutlation if in order to be reflective, effective, and useful > must have at it's base, the approval of individual users. Therefore > individual users, must have a direct input and determination of the > process for developing such regimes or whatever regulation policies > are to be set, or otherwise imposed. The will of the governed must > prevail. > > Hakikur Rahman wrote: > > > Dear Adam, > > > > Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a > > researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding > > infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's role > > in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case studies > > included only the mentioned institutions. > > > > Best regards, > > Hakik > > > > At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing the > > >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and > > >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris > > >Marsden ) > > > > > >The study is available from European Commission > > > > > > > > > > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that > > >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory > > >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer > > >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 > > >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four groupings: > > > > > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) > > > > > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) > > > > > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) > > > > > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social > > >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) > > > > > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages. > > > > > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and > > >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and > > >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. > > > > > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago (3rd qtr 2007). > > > > > >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 > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Cheers, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 6 19:59:09 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:59:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation References: <20080906134534.831CC698B0@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48C1A748.292FD4A8@ix.netcom.com> <200809071708.m87H8WRf017627@mail-relay-4.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Message-ID: <48C3194D.A9DFCC48@ix.netcom.com> Jonathan and all, From what I can gather from your remarks below, it seems to me you made my case that self regulation and co-regulation doesn't work. My meaning was that self regulation from governmental, or NGO groups, has proven historically, to be far less than successful over time. And often that time frame is very short. For this reason I believe our Declaration of Independence starts out with "We The People", and our founding fathers, mostly of EU origin learned the hard way that governments cannot be imparted with exclusive and non challenging trust. This fact most certainly remains true today, if not more so. In any event, thank you for you response and thoughts... >:) Jonathan Cave wrote: > A couple of brief comments, if I may: > > The study was intended to help the EU take self- and co-regulation > into account in ex ante evaluation and impact assessment of policies, > not to give a comprehensive survey or assessment of selfreg in > general, any specific institution, etc. To do so, we selected case > studies to span the issues and features relevant to policy > assessment. The study was not 'well-meaning' in the sense implied and > served no political agenda. In addition to the mapping (phase 1) and > case study (phase 2) parts, the final report includes > conceptual/theoretical analysis and a framework for setting up impact > assessments and deciding how (if at all) to incorporate self-reg into > telecom policy. See also the Ofcom consultation on the subject > (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/co-reg/promoting_effective_coregulation/). > > We certainly recognised and endorsed the value of wide participation, > and the potential advantages of selfreg in terms of access to > accurate information, realistic and recogniseably meaningful > recommendations, lower enforcement costs and (sometimes) higher > compliance. But we also recognised potential pitfalls,such as the > tendency of selfreg bodies, especially those accorded regulatory > forbearance, to serve their members' interests rather than the public > interest, and the very real possibility that they might be set up as > (or might become) 'Potemkin regulators' that serve to deter or > pre-empt more stringent or effective control measures (by accident, > evolution or design). > > But it's a bit simplistic to say that it 'doesn't work' even if the > implication that formal command and control regulation 'does work' > was not intended. agenda creep, regulatory capture, and disconnection > between ostensible and effective regulatory agendas are pretty > pervasive. Also, we used the term to refer to regulatory actions > undertaken (in whole or in part) by non-state actors, not by one or > another 'side' of an issue or market. The analytic part of the study > draws attention to multistakeholder 'selfreg' organisations (e/g/ > consumer counsels and some WSIS bodies), to selfreg bodies whose > constraints fall at other places in the value chain (e.g. insurance > self-reg) and to powersharing arrangements between government, > business and civil society bodies (species of 'co-regulation'). > > Formal regulators get captured by industry interests just as easily, > and their formalised mechanisms of accountability and transparency > have all-too-evident limitations. At least with a selfreg body, > participation can be voluntary (though there are cases where the > 'insiders' either block the entry of others or compel outsiders' > comp[liance with the standards, codes, etc. they choose.). With > government bodies, it's much harder to vote with your feet. > > Finally, while end users' input can be valuable, there is a fairly > obvious tension between openness and efficacy, and end-users, like > all other players, are vulnerable to manipulation from prophets of > doom and of redemption alike. > > Cheers, > > Jonathan > > At 22:40 05/09/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > >Hakikur and all, > > > > Institutions are often times out of touch with users. Self regulation > >or Co-regutlation if in order to be reflective, effective, and useful > >must have at it's base, the approval of individual users. Therefore > >individual users, must have a direct input and determination of the > >process for developing such regimes or whatever regulation policies > >are to be set, or otherwise imposed. The will of the governed must > >prevail. > > > >Hakikur Rahman wrote: > > > > > Dear Adam, > > > > > > Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a > > > researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding > > > infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's role > > > in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case studies > > > included only the mentioned institutions. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Hakik > > > > > > At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing the > > > >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and > > > >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris > > > >Marsden ) > > > > > > > >The study is available from European Commission > > > > > 2006_05/index_en.htm> > > > > > > > > > > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that > > > >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory > > > >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer > > > >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 > > > >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four groupings: > > > > > > > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) > > > > > > > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) > > > > > > > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) > > > > > > > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social > > > >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) > > > > > > > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages. > > > > > > > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and > > > >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and > > > >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. > > > > > > > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago (3rd > > qtr 2007). > > > > > > > >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 > > > >Regards, > > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >=============================================================== > >Updated 1/26/04 > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 8 00:58:15 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:58:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48C38013.4010905@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48C38013.4010905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E71A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about the > very existence of the categories of positive and collective rights. A > 'negative rights' understanding of rights is already dominant in the IG > space, Dominant? But wait, just a few posts ago you were telling me that the vast majority of civil society groups supported your conception of rights and that I was either a minority of one, or part of a very tiny and insignificant group, so tiny it could be ignored. So which is it? Anyway, the issue is whether those doubts exist, or not. They do. So why should the statement not reflect that? Let's put it this way: if one sincerely thinks, as I do, that redefinition of human rights in collectivist and positive terms is often inimical to real rights, why should I be willing to sign on to a statement that strongly implies that the whole point of a rights discourse is to push the discussion into those directions? > largely due to the dominance of Northern groups in the CS space, > and very little involvement of Southern groups. I don't want an IGC > statement to reinforce it. It will have a very detrimental impact on the > struggles of those in the CS who are trying to open up spaces in the > area of positive and collective rights, under very adverse and difficult > circumstances. This is not about North and South, it's about left vs. liberal. In any society, any culture, there are left-oriented people and there are liberals. Both ideologies are Western in their current manifestations, and probably originated not in North or South but in the middle (Greece), although there are mutual and reciprocal influences and cultural adaptations of various sorts. In some societies, liberals are a tiny minority, e.g. in many Islamic countries you can get killed for supporting women's individual rights. The small size of the view, however, doesn't mean it isn't right. > > It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other > > excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human > > rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it > > exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG > > discourse takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very So what you believe is "progress," and that must mean that what I believe is "backwards." Well, thanks a lot, but I happen to believe that what you are advocating in this case is backwards-moving, as it would provide ample rationale for rolling back (or never allowing to begin with) key freedoms. > And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and > implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic > logic with me that - well, the contestation within CS is only a > statement of fact. > While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a positive > right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words of wisdom on > why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. It may help Parminder, either you are being dishonest here or you need to go back and read what I wrote and try to comprehend it. Really, we don't have time for rhetorical games. I am up to my ears in contesting IPR interests in the ICANN and other IG spaces, have been for 10 years, I don't need you to hector me about how I am somehow against contesting it. The thrust of what I said was not that "we can't be seen to be contesting IPR;" on the contrary it was that we should contest it but need to be unified on that because "fanatical opposition" will come from private sector and govts. > > you to know that every single civil society group I work with in India > > and in other developing countries will consider it anathema for a CS > > statement casting doubts on the very existence on positive and > > collective rights, and there will be, to use your words 'fanatical > > opposition'. Why aren't you concerned with this fanatical opposition, if I did not propose a statement that says "civil society casts doubt on the very existence of positive and collective rights." I proposed a statement that said, "some contest it, some support it." The argument for that statement is blindingly simple: it is true. This discussion is proof. If the people you work with would greet a true statement with fanatical opposition, I frankly don't care what they think. But what does it say about the strength of their ideas and the confidence they have in their truth if they cannot enter into a discourse about rights if it means acknowledging that there are actually people out there who have a different view about it? Note, my position is not that the statement has to reflect my personal view of rights, it is simply that it must acknowledge the existence of contention. That is now non-negotiable. > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to > Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right > to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important > IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." > > Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. I don't. It's just your attempt to get your agenda smuggled in as the view of the whole of civil society. We won't agree on this statement until and unless you can accept the fact of a difference of view as to the nature of rights. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 8 00:58:52 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:58:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48C38013.4010905@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48C38013.4010905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E71B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > I can live with the language proposed by Parminder as a compromise. > It's not a compromise. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk Mon Sep 8 06:41:01 2008 From: j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk (Jonathan Cave) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:41:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation In-Reply-To: <48C316A5.6670A25F@ix.netcom.com> References: <20080906134534.831CC698B0@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48C1A748.292FD4A8@ix.netcom.com> <465914659-1220777109-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1630575657-@bxe101.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> <48C316A5.6670A25F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <200809081041.m88Af39S021791@mail-relay-3.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Thanks for this. Sorry for the language - occupational hazard. I'm not sure what you are saying - it seems that you see problems with any form of governance per se with the possible exception of direct democracy. Even so, some arrangements work better than others in reconciling and advancing collective and individual interest (and the many overlapping group interests that come and go in between these extremes). The final report also draws attention to forces that can restrain both the internal weaknesses of these organisations and their vulnerability to capture, corruption or irrelevance. Two are competition among different (self-, co-, and formal) regulatory bodies and informed choice (to participate and/or comply). There's lots of self-reg around outside the ICT domain - e.g. medicine, financial services, law, accountancy, etc. Not all of these fail, and not all the time. Of course, it may be that your objection is not to the "regulation" part but the "self" part. "We the people" seems to turn anything the (US) government does into 'self' regulation - except when it (or its 'self-regulatory' dependent bodies - I name no names) tries to regulate beyond its borders. So, could you be a bit more specific about what you object to: * regulation in principle * regulation by an industry group of its own members' actions (codes of conduct) * regulation by an industry group of other members of the industry (standards) * regulation by an industry of others' actions (e.g. insurance companies' 'self-regulation' of claimants and policyholders) * regulation by a multistakeholder forum * 'walled garden' controls placed on subscribers and affiliated content providers by vertically-integrated ISPs * etrc.? Thanks, J. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device At 00:47 07/09/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >Ecase and all, > > Good political language used in your response here. But hardly >clarifies my concern and other remarks to the extent of what and >how individuals would be effected or otherwise required to >comply. Ergo, more general language would be preferrable, >and yet again I still fully assert that self regulation or co-regulation >doesn't work, and never has for any significant period of time. > > Although I prefer self regulation of an individual basis, I dispise >it on a collective basis or organizational basis unless of course >I personally agree with whatever regulation that may apply! >:) > > Governments as you know from your own countries history, >as with mine, rarely always adhere to their own regulations, and >in some instances some certain exepmtions to such regulation is >granted or otherwise "Understood". Same is even more true for >NGO's or other advocacy oriented groups. > >ecsae at mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote: > > > Two comments, if I may: the purpose of the > study was to help the EC to take self- and > co-reg into account in future ex ante > evaluation, impact assessment and policy > formation, not to comprehensively survey or > evaluate the status quo, so ITU and other > specific stakeholders - even important ones - > are not all there. The intent was rather to use > the cases to indicate the range of initiatives > and the classes of things the EC should consider. > > > > Second, we strongly support wide partcipation > and the need for standing and voice to > encourage useful engagement, but recognise both > the tension between wide participation and the > efficacy of the organisation (relevance, > coherence and levels of compliance) and the > potential of such platforms to encourage > strategic or collusive behaviour, to further > hidden agendas or to use self-reg to create > "Potemkin regulators" in order to pre-empt real > action - intentionally or otherwise. > > > > J. > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" > > > > Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:40:25 > > To: > > Subject: Re: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation > > > > Hakikur and all, > > > > Institutions are often times out of touch with users. Self regulation > > or Co-regutlation if in order to be reflective, effective, and useful > > must have at it's base, the approval of individual users. Therefore > > individual users, must have a direct input and determination of the > > process for developing such regimes or whatever regulation policies > > are to be set, or otherwise imposed. The will of the governed must > > prevail. > > > > Hakikur Rahman wrote: > > > > > Dear Adam, > > > > > > Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a > > > researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding > > > infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's role > > > in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case studies > > > included only the mentioned institutions. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Hakik > > > > > > At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing the > > > >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and > > > >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe (Chris > > > >Marsden ) > > > > > > > >The study is available from European Commission > > > > y/evaluation/studies/s2006_05/index_en.htm> > > > > > > > > > > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that > > > >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory > > > >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer > > > >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 > > > >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four groupings: > > > > > > > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, W3C, ICRA) > > > > > > > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, FSM) > > > > > > > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) > > > > > > > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, Social > > > >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) > > > > > > > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages. > > > > > > > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and > > > >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and > > > >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic principle. > > > > > > > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't > written too long ago (3rd qtr 2007). > > > > > > > >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 > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Cheers, > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >=============================================================== >Updated 1/26/04 >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >My Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 7 08:51:39 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 05:51:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809061106.m86B6Da6018415@mx1.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E6D4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48C38013.4010905@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E71B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C3CE5B.A8B8291B@ix.netcom.com> Milton, Jeanette, and all, I must agree with Milton here. The language after re-reading, of what Parminder suggests, is not a compermise. Yet I recognize that Parminder intends well, he is in error as to the origin of "Rights" as Milton nicely articulated. They, Parminder's language, are too easily contestable and would crumble when, and not if, such is contended, to oblivion. Too try to calm things down a little bit, try to remember that this is going to be very hard work, and a ver hard battle, perhaps lsting for years, to get largely recognized, let alone broadly excepted. Some of us will likely not live to see the day when either is achieved. But we all must be willing and steadfast in the effort. Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > > > I can live with the language proposed by Parminder as a compromise. > > > > It's not a compromise. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 7 10:20:53 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:20:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation References: <20080906134534.831CC698B0@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48C1A748.292FD4A8@ix.netcom.com> <465914659-1220777109-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1630575657-@bxe101.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> <48C316A5.6670A25F@ix.netcom.com> <200809081041.m88Af39S021791@mail-relay-3.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Message-ID: <48C3E345.2341F60D@ix.netcom.com> Johathan and all, My response is interspersed below... Jonathan Cave wrote: > Thanks for this. > > Sorry for the language - occupational hazard. I'm not sure what you > are saying - it seems that you see problems with any form of > governance per se with the possible exception of direct democracy. > Even so, some arrangements work better than others in reconciling and > advancing collective and individual interest (and the many overlapping > group interests that come and go in between these extremes). The final > report also draws attention to forces that can restrain both the > internal weaknesses of these organisations and their vulnerability to > capture, corruption or irrelevance. Two are competition among > different (self-, co-, and formal) regulatory bodies and informed > choice (to participate and/or comply). No appology necessary. I had already replyed in answer to the "informed Choice" aspect in an earlier reply off list. > > > There's lots of self-reg around outside the ICT domain - e.g. > medicine, financial services, law, accountancy, etc. Not all of these > fail, and not all the time. I disagree. All fail at one time or another for vrious reasons. Recent history has shown us all such quite, and sometimes painfully clearly. > > > Of course, it may be that your objection is not to the "regulation" > part but the "self" part. "We the people" seems to turn anything the > (US) government does into 'self' regulation - except when it (or its > 'self-regulatory' dependent bodies - I name no names) tries to > regulate beyond its borders. > So, could you be a bit more specific about what you object to: > > * regulation in principle > I do not object to regulation in principal. > * > * regulation by an industry group of its own members' actions > (codes of conduct) > I also do not object to regulation by an industry group as long as there is adaquate oversight, and that it's members customers are part of the determining process. > * > * regulation by an industry group of other members of the industry > (standards) > I am very much in favor of standards per se. > * > * regulation by an industry of others' actions (e.g. insurance > companies' 'self-regulation' of claimants and policyholders) > I amd NOT in favor of industry regulating others actions if others are it's customers AND those customers are not an intragal part of the regulation process. > * > * regulation by a multistakeholder forum > This is unclear to me. WHOM are you referring to exactly? > * > * 'walled garden' controls placed on subscribers and affiliated > content providers by vertically-integrated ISPs > I believe your are referring to TOS'es? If not, than again I am not clear on what your are actually asking here. > * > * etrc.? > > Thanks, > > J. > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > > > At 00:47 07/09/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > >> Ecase and all, >> >> Good political language used in your response here. But hardly >> clarifies my concern and other remarks to the extent of what and >> how individuals would be effected or otherwise required to >> comply. Ergo, more general language would be preferrable, >> and yet again I still fully assert that self regulation or >> co-regulation >> doesn't work, and never has for any significant period of time. >> >> Although I prefer self regulation of an individual basis, I >> dispise >> it on a collective basis or organizational basis unless of course >> I personally agree with whatever regulation that may apply! >:) >> >> Governments as you know from your own countries history, >> as with mine, rarely always adhere to their own regulations, and >> in some instances some certain exepmtions to such regulation is >> granted or otherwise "Understood". Same is even more true for >> NGO's or other advocacy oriented groups. >> >> ecsae at mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote: >> >> > Two comments, if I may: the purpose of the study was to help the >> EC to take self- and co-reg into account in future ex ante >> evaluation, impact assessment and policy formation, not to >> comprehensively survey or evaluate the status quo, so ITU and other >> specific stakeholders - even important ones - are not all there. The >> intent was rather to use the cases to indicate the range of >> initiatives and the classes of things the EC should consider. >> > >> > Second, we strongly support wide partcipation and the need for >> standing and voice to encourage useful engagement, but recognise >> both the tension between wide participation and the efficacy of the >> organisation (relevance, coherence and levels of compliance) and the >> potential of such platforms to encourage strategic or collusive >> behaviour, to further hidden agendas or to use self-reg to create >> "Potemkin regulators" in order to pre-empt real action - >> intentionally or otherwise. >> > >> > J. >> > >> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >> > >> > Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:40:25 >> > To: >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Study on ICT self- and co-regulation >> > >> > Hakikur and all, >> > >> > Institutions are often times out of touch with users. Self >> regulation >> > or Co-regutlation if in order to be reflective, effective, and >> useful >> > must have at it's base, the approval of individual users. >> Therefore >> > individual users, must have a direct input and determination of >> the >> > process for developing such regimes or whatever regulation >> policies >> > are to be set, or otherwise imposed. The will of the governed >> must >> > prevail. >> > >> > Hakikur Rahman wrote: >> > >> > > Dear Adam, >> > > >> > > Thank you for sharing an important document with the list. As a >> > > researcher in this field, I find it valuable. However, regarding >> >> > > infrastructure and standards setting I do not see much of ITU's >> role >> > > in the case study. Perhaps, I may have missed it, or the case >> studies >> > > included only the mentioned institutions. >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Hakik >> > > >> > > At 07:47 PM 9/5/2008, Adam Peake wrote: >> > > >Hi, >> > > > >> > > >The European Commission recently published a study assessing >> the >> > > >efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of ICT self- and >> > > >co-regulation initiatives. The study was led by RAND Europe >> (Chris >> > > >Marsden < http://chrismarsden.blogspot.com/>) >> > > > >> > > >The study is available from European Commission >> > > >< >> http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/studies/s2006_05/index_en.htm >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >The study consists of two main parts: a mapping exercise that >> > > >examines existing regulatory and co- and self-regulatory >> > > >institutions and identifies "candidate" case studies for closer >> >> > > >analysis. And a second phase report providing the results of 21 >> >> > > >short case studies. Case studies were presented in four >> groupings: >> > > > >> > > >Internet Infrastructure and Standards (ICANN, Nominet, IETF, >> W3C, ICRA) >> > > > >> > > >Internet Self- and Co-Regulation (IWF, INHOPE, EuroISPA, KJM, >> FSM) >> > > > >> > > >Content and Filtering/Rating (ICSTIS, IMCB, NICAM, PEGI, ATVOD) >> >> > > > >> > > >Emerging Self Regulation Areas (SecondLife, Creative Commons, >> Social >> > > >Network: Bebo, Trustmarks, London Action Plan, IGF) >> > > > >> > > >Total of all phases about 1300 pages. >> > > > >> > > >A clear conclusion of the report is that robust self-and >> > > >co-regulatory organisations only develop where their design and >> >> > > >dynamics take a multi-stakeholder approach as their basic >> principle. >> > > > >> > > >Parts already seem dated and it wasn't written too long ago >> (3rd qtr 2007). >> > > > >> > > >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 >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders >> strong!) >> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> > Abraham Lincoln >> > >> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what >> is >> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> > >> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> >> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> > =============================================================== >> > Updated 1/26/04 >> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security >> IDNS. >> > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> > My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Semper Fi, >> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders >> strong!) >> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> Abraham Lincoln >> >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> =============================================================== >> Updated 1/26/04 >> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> My Phone: 214-244-4827 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Mon Sep 8 10:07:45 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:07:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809050742.m857ghLL026046@mx2.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I haven't been able to keep up on this discussion as I would have liked to, but I wanted to weigh in (hopefully not too late and off topic). I also have deep concerns about promoting "collective" rights because I see them as subordinating individual rights in potentially dangerous ways (although no harm is intended). It is the sovereign individual that is ultimately responsible. Individuals acting together can be collectives, but it always breaks down to the individual in the end. Robin On Sep 5, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I > have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of > engagement and deliberation is very useful. > > > Agreed. > > > > It is important to recognize that there are two important and > different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a > category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > membership that really contests the very validity of the category > of positive and collective rights. I invite members’ comments on > this statement. Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement should > go out casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of > rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of the > statement removed. > > > But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it > is not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion > more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this > would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a > "small minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is > contested, and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out > of it and issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of > your statement as an expression of IGC. > > > > The second contestation is about whether there are some already > accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the > Internet – right to access internet (positive right) and right to > cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a > collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus > in this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only > speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. > Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of ‘wanting to > explore’ with regard to these rights. > > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think > it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. > > > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to > privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive > and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet – > for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of > cultural diversity.” > > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are > significant participants in CS who contest the positive and > collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > > > > “We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and > claim “rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict > or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a > “right to Internet access” may imply an obligation on states to > fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are > responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be > strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users > can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a > factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how > to apply legal categories. “ > > > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right to the > Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for > it. I would delete the whole para. > > > So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot > be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only > thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are > responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That > makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. > > > > I however find the last two sentences – which I know you state in > terms of meaningfulness of universal access – very interesting in > terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR > paragraph in a separate email. > > > The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to > universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of > issues, especially privacy and identity. > > > I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. > > “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it > reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, > impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken > to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and > to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for > privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant > parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva > Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been > done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet > governance.” > > > If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE > and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important > rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. > As argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights > agenda may at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG > related policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse > broader, > > > This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. > You start with the area where there is the most common ground. The > point about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have > already committed themselves to it, I think the line about > balancing security concerns with other rights is especially > important. Even on your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to > start with the traditional rights and then move gradually into how > far it can be taken. > > > including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, > which go beyond these two rights. > > > Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the > vast majority 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 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Sep 8 11:11:33 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:11:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080907093120.155F1A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080907071328.GA28520@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <20080907093120.155F1A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080908151133.GA24363@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 03:01:01PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > As for 'who pays' I never thought that there is ever any doubt about > it - positive rights are claims against the collective of the > political community which in most cases is the nation state, and > that's who pays. When "state pays" it usually means the state forces (some of) its cítizens to pay. As for "collective of the political community", the practical outcome can be quite different depending on which specific entity that is - political communities overlap. This comes up with the right to education, for example: there is a big difference whether it is the state or the city who pays. In the present context it might be even seen that the international community would be somehow responsible, say in providing Internet access to poorer nations. It is not a trivial point. But I guess it isn't useful to expand on that now - the question will obviously come up when new potential rights are being explored, which is all we're now suggesting. > The meaning in which the term [collective rights] is used is quite > well-established to be generally understood in the right meaning. In my experience "generally understood" terms only too often turn out to mean different things to different people, when examined more closely. Generally speaking, of course. :-) > There are many scholarly works available on the subject ...which usually means there even more different meanings... > but I am > referring an article on the concept of collective rights in practice > in India. (pl see http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF36.htm ) > We use it in the term in its generally understood meaning in the > rights discourse. I presume that means such usage as in the article referred to above. Very well. While I don't find it really useful, I accept that is the way it is used here. > > "right to access Internet" > It is used in the positive rights sense - in equivalence to right to > education. OK. That makes sense in that the negative meaning is already implied by freedom of expression. I observe, however, that positive rights interpretation can actually be less than negative would, as states may and indeed are likely to interpret it so that they may restrict access to Internet to what they choose to provide. Thus I'd like to add something to the effect that it may not be interpreted as a limitation of other rights, in particular not FoE. I don't insist on that in the present document, however, lest it grow too long. > If it makes it clear I can change it to 'right to the Internet' - > that makes it clearer. No, that doesn't really help. Leave it as it is. > When we say " It may also be > useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are > meaningful in relation to the Internet" We are being as exploratory as > one can. Yes. That formulation is acceptable to me (better than the one I commented on). -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Sep 8 11:22:22 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:22:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080908151133.GA24363@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080907071328.GA28520@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <20080907093120.155F1A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080908151133.GA24363@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20080908152222.GB24363@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 06:11:33PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (tapani.tarvainen at effi.org) wrote: > > When we say " It may also be > > useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are > > meaningful in relation to the Internet" We are being as exploratory as > > one can. > > Yes. That formulation is acceptable to me I must retract a bit here. My main gripe here was the subsequent "for example", omitted above, as it makes an implicit but strong statement on the nature of those rights - in particular hinting that there _is_ no such thing as negative, non-collective right to Internet access, and because "cultural rights" is too often used only as an excuse to restrict individual rights. I would also change "are" to "could be", to avoid making a strong statement about the existence of such rights. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 8 11:35:32 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 21:05:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E71B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080908153541.87527E1F36@smtp3.electricembers.net> Milton, I will try to stick to essential points that impact the process of statement under consideration. I have already stated all the main points in my earlier email, but you have ignored them. So I will restate them. I paraphrase your main point as follows. It is a fact that there is a contestation. It does not even matter how many contest the essential issue of validity of the category of positive and collective rights, and just seeking an exploration of these rights in the context of the Internet. The statement should just state the fact of contestation. That will be truthful and simple. I asked you a pointed question. Given that I have heard you argue with others on this list about (or not to) balancing FoE rights with other important considerations - to give two instances, with Vittorio and few others on .xxx issues and Rui and some others on websites with hate speech. Now, the question is, would you agree to IGC making a statement that captures this 'reality' of contestation in a straightforward manner. Something like - 'While FoE and privacy rights are important they may need to be balanced with considerations of cultural diversity, security etc'. or even '....some think they need to be balanced with...' (I have also read contestations between privacy and security on this list). Pl reply specifically, whether you agree to put the above statement across as an IGC statement submitted to the IGF. If not, why so. How would your reply stand justification in face of your argument - what is a simple reality should as well be stated. I myself won't agree to the above statement going out because I think it will greatly harm IGC's advocacy efforts, for reasons which are evident. Correspondingly, I can't agree to an IGC statement which casts doubts about the very validity of the categories of positive and collective rights. IGC's claim if of being a global CS group. I asked another question in my last email - can you point me to a single global CS human rights group with any meaningful participation from developing country which does not accept positive and collective rights? I don't want IGC to become the first one. Maybe just my view. But I think it will lose support and legitimacy from most of civil society from the South if it does this. I am only pointing to what I see as a fact. It may not matter to some people here that there is little participation form the South in IG CS fora. See the emails to this list, to ALAC and NCUC list etc. But then if one doesn't believe there are collective identities it just doesn't matter, isn't it? Everyone is an individual and these forums are 'open' to all. That's enough, and people's right to participation are guaranteed, and thereby obtained! The bane of negative rights fundamentalism) BTW, if there are no collective identities, why does this group send nominations to MAG on geographic basis? How is ones right to equal consideration in such an important political space overridden by a collective identity that underpins what would accordingly be a collective right. Milton, all the above are direct questions which will need to be answered in support of your position. If there are corresponding questions you want me to answer, I will surely do. Parminder PS: All rights have conflicts and contestations: right to (mass) expression over local radios have been used to incite racial hatred directly leading to mass killings in Rwanda, and North West Pakistan. Right to privacy has been misused to stash such amount of corruption money from India in Swiss banks that a check on this practice would probably trigger structural reforms in Indian governance system. There is some amount of tension in India today between people's right to know about public affairs and public servants and their claims of privacy about their spouses and relatives' property, for instance. But CS is generally strategic about which facts it states in which statements. > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:29 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > I can live with the language proposed by Parminder as a compromise. > > > > It's not a compromise. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Sep 8 12:27:50 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:27:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Since I¹m sitting next to Robin at the A2K3 conference I guess I should second her statement. Bill On 9/8/08 4:07 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: > I haven't been able to keep up on this discussion as I would have liked to, > but I wanted to weigh in (hopefully not too late and off topic). > > I also have deep concerns about promoting "collective" rights because I see > them as subordinating individual rights in potentially dangerous ways > (although no harm is intended).  It is the sovereign individual that is > ultimately responsible.  Individuals acting together can be collectives, but > it always breaks down to the individual in the end. > > Robin > > On Sep 5, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> >>> >>> Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I have a >>> lot of issues with your amendments, this process of engagement and >>> deliberation is very useful.   >>>   >>> >>> Agreed.  >>>   >>> It is important to recognize that there are two important and different >>> contestations here. One, whether there is at all a category of positive >>> and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My personal view is that it >>> is a very small minority among the IGC membership that really contests the >>> very validity of the category of positive and collective rights. I invite >>> members¹ comments on this statement. Accordingly, I don¹t think an IGC >>> statement should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these >>> categories of rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of >>> the statement removed.  >>>   >>> >>> But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it is not >>> just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion more or less >>> from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this would look like >>> almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a >>> significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and if the statement >>> doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and issue a separate statement >>> contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an expression of IGC. >>>   >>> >>> The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted >>> extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet ­ right to >>> access internet (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an >>> Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there may >>> not be enough consensus in this group at present to assert these rights, >>> and we may only speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. >>> Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of Œwanting to explore¹ with >>> regard to these rights.   >>>   >>> >>> I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is >>> perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues.   >>>   >>> ³The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely >>> recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the >>> individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be >>> useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are >>> meaningful in relation to the Internet ­ for instance a right to Internet >>> access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an >>> Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic >>> area of cultural diversity.²  >>>   >>> >>> >>> This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant >>> participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I >>> can't accept it. >>>   >>> ³We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim >>> ³rights² it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also >>> recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each >>> other. For example, a claim that there is a ³right to Internet access² may >>> imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is >>> likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that >>> there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what >>> content users can access using public funds and facilities.  There can >>> also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a >>> factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication >>> often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal >>> categories. ³ >>>   >>> This para clearly makes out a strong case against Œright to the Internet¹ >>> and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete >>> the whole para.   >>>   >>> >>> So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot be >>> contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only thing you need >>> to do is replace "it is likely that if states are responsible" with "some >>> fear that if states are responsible."  That makes it clear that there is >>> disagreement. which there is. >>>   >>> I however find the last two sentences ­ which I know you state in terms of >>> meaningfulness of universal access ­ very interesting in terms of IPR in >>> digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a >>> separate email.  >>>   >>> >>> The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to universal >>> access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of issues, especially >>> privacy and identity.   >>> I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. >>> ³The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a >>> global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use >>> information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet >>> stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must >>> protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression >>> as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human >>> Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow >>> up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in >>> Internet governance.² >>> >>>   >>> If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE and >>> privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, our >>> effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued in my >>> earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time >>> be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy discussions >>> also lies in making the rights discourse broader,   >>>   >>> >>> This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. You start >>> with the area where there is the most common ground. The point about >>> citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already committed >>> themselves to it, I think the line about balancing security concerns with >>> other rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive terms, it >>> would be wiser to start with the traditional rights and then move >>> gradually into how far it can be taken. >>>   >>> >>>  including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, which >>> go beyond these two rights.   >>>   >>> >>> Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the vast >>> majority 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 >> > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA > p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Center for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 8 12:32:20 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:02:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080908163232.C0D4CE1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Robin, 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right as such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural rights, minority rights, right to development etc. To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to say that one doesn't believe in the above rights. That's a simple and direct derivation. Are you saying so? One cannot say, no, I 'do' believe in all or some of the rights listed above but not in collective rights as a category. Negative, positive and collective rights are categories of representation and analysis, and in fact help to underscore that different sets of rights may need different justifications and analysis (something which Tapani asked to be clarified). In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these rights, and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may be considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and need not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. I quote what the IGC statement of July 19, 2005 to the WSIS process said about rights. "Among priority public policy issues are.."... Addressing human rights as a cross-cutting principle in relation to evolution and use of the Internet. Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights." Most of the rights I mention above are universally agreed human rights. Many positive rights and collective rights are certainly among what would constitute as the category of universally agreed human rights as meant in the above statement. So while IGC at one time insisted that 'Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights', and now if it issues a statement that 'impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights' I for one, as an IGC member, would certainly not want to be a party to it. Parminder _____ From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper I haven't been able to keep up on this discussion as I would have liked to, but I wanted to weigh in (hopefully not too late and off topic). I also have deep concerns about promoting "collective" rights because I see them as subordinating individual rights in potentially dangerous ways (although no harm is intended). It is the sovereign individual that is ultimately responsible. Individuals acting together can be collectives, but it always breaks down to the individual in the end. Robin On Sep 5, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. Agreed. It is important to recognize that there are two important and different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC membership that really contests the very validity of the category of positive and collective rights. I invite members' comments on this statement. Accordingly, I don't think an IGC statement should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of the statement removed. But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an expression of IGC. The second contestation is about whether there are some already accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet - right to access internet (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of 'wanting to explore' with regard to these rights. I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. "We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. " This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the Internet' and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. I however find the last two sentences - which I know you state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access - very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email. The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and identity. I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. "The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance." If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader, This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. You start with the area where there is the most common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already committed themselves to it, I think the line about balancing security concerns with other rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it can be taken. including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, which go beyond these two rights. Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the vast majority 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 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Sep 8 13:11:02 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:11:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080908163232.C0D4CE1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080908163232.C0D4CE1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080908171102.GA6075@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right as > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural rights, > minority rights, right to development etc. > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to say > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective. I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals would have because of their membership in a group. The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these rights, > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may be > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and need > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. That might be a useful approach. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 14:34:32 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:04:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080908171102.GA6075@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080908163232.C0D4CE1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080908171102.GA6075@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hello Parminder and All, All the heat is about the connotations of the term "collective rights". I tried to understand the distinction between individual right and collective right and this is what I found: *Individual Rights apply to the generic individual without regard to his or her identity.... These rights are determined with no knowledge of what our actual economic standing, educational level, gender, or ethnic origin would be. Most international and national formulations of human rights are drafted in such a way as to apply to a generic individual.* *Collective rights, however, do not start with the individual but rather with a specific group. Individuals are defined by their membership in that group, which thus differentiates them from others in society. Some collectives are formed by choice (religious affiliation in the United States, for example). Others are predetermined (the traditional understanding of gender, for example). Collective rights begin with the premise that the group has a claim to make. Historically, we can see numerous examples of group treatment (generally negative). In the Roman Empire, for example, Jews possessed the status of a religio licita, and as such enjoyed specific rights as Jews--the right not to work on the Sabbath, or to recognize the divinity of the Emperor. Such rights were granted to the Jewish collective and thus to the individual Jew of the Empire by virtue of being Jewish and thus distinct from Greeks or Syrians or Celts in the Empire. The Ottoman Empire was governed under the millet system, by which each group in the Empire was defined via their religious community. Thus, people living in the same town but belonging to different faiths had different rights and obligations on account of their group membership. A vague notion of collective rights also lay behind the concept of extra-territoriality, that people, by virtue of their citizenship, in foreign lands should be governed, not by local law, but by the laws of their originating state. ---- from a Lecture of Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor of **The National Interest and a Senior Fellow in Strategic Studies at The Nixon Center.* Internet Governance Caucus can propose Collective Rights if we would like to see different bandwidth plans for men and women, priority access for "backward and "most backward" classes as invented in India, publishing space discrimination between different churches, and free DVD movies for those who live in mountains. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. India. On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder ( > parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right > as > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural > rights, > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to > say > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective. > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > would have because of their membership in a group. > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these > rights, > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may > be > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and > need > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. > > That might be a useful approach. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 8 15:41:58 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:41:58 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <10B25045821A4E2A8600AE636BE3A398@IAN> Thanks for that definition, it really helps me to understand things a bit better as I was a bit confused by this debate. So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a collective right? If so, please count me among those who do believe in some collective rights. But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) 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 _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2008 04:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Hello Parminder and All, All the heat is about the connotations of the term "collective rights". I tried to understand the distinction between individual right and collective right and this is what I found: Individual Rights apply to the generic individual without regard to his or her identity.... These rights are determined with no knowledge of what our actual economic standing, educational level, gender, or ethnic origin would be. Most international and national formulations of human rights are drafted in such a way as to apply to a generic individual. Collective rights, however, do not start with the individual but rather with a specific group. Individuals are defined by their membership in that group, which thus differentiates them from others in society. Some collectives are formed by choice (religious affiliation in the United States, for example). Others are predetermined (the traditional understanding of gender, for example). Collective rights begin with the premise that the group has a claim to make. Historically, we can see numerous examples of group treatment (generally negative). In the Roman Empire, for example, Jews possessed the status of a religio licita, and as such enjoyed specific rights as Jews--the right not to work on the Sabbath, or to recognize the divinity of the Emperor. Such rights were granted to the Jewish collective and thus to the individual Jew of the Empire by virtue of being Jewish and thus distinct from Greeks or Syrians or Celts in the Empire. The Ottoman Empire was governed under the millet system, by which each group in the Empire was defined via their religious community. Thus, people living in the same town but belonging to different faiths had different rights and obligations on account of their group membership. A vague notion of collective rights also lay behind the concept of extra-territoriality, that people, by virtue of their citizenship, in foreign lands should be governed, not by local law, but by the laws of their originating state. ---- from a Lecture of Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor of The National Interest and a Senior Fellow in Strategic Studies at The Nixon Center. Internet Governance Caucus can propose Collective Rights if we would like to see different bandwidth plans for men and women, priority access for "backward and "most backward" classes as invented in India, publishing space discrimination between different churches, and free DVD movies for those who live in mountains. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. India. On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right as > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural rights, > minority rights, right to development etc. > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to say > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective. I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals would have because of their membership in a group. The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these rights, > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may be > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and need > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. That might be a useful approach. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 16:48:04 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 02:18:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <10B25045821A4E2A8600AE636BE3A398@IAN> References: <10B25045821A4E2A8600AE636BE3A398@IAN> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main > theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) > Hello Ian and Parminder, I have one of Parminder's documents embedded in my blog and took a rapid look at it to find interesting alternatives to the theme of rights, and found that the document talks about Internet as Public Infrastructure. There has been a lot of passion about this topic of "rights" but this topic is dangerous territory. Can we think of "Internet as Public Infrastructure" as the overwhelming theme of the IGF, Cairo? The other themes that occurred to me are "Depoliticizing the Internet", again from Parminder's document, but this theme again is a double edged sword like the theme of "Rights" and would charge the IGF atmosphere with a lot of political debates. One more theme could be the broad theme of "preserving the essential characteristics of the Internet in the process of unrestrained growth" or even simply "Internet for the next billion users- challenges in 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 09 September 2008 04:35 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Hello Parminder and All, > > > All the heat is about the connotations of the term "collective rights". I > tried to understand the distinction between individual right and collective > right and this is what I found: > > *Individual Rights apply to the generic individual without regard to his > or her identity.... These rights are determined with no knowledge of what > our actual economic standing, educational level, gender, or ethnic origin > would be. Most international and national formulations of human rights are > drafted in such a way as to apply to a generic individual.* > > *Collective rights, however, do not start with the individual but rather > with a specific group. Individuals are defined by their membership in that > group, which thus differentiates them from others in society. Some > collectives are formed by choice (religious affiliation in the United > States, for example). Others are predetermined (the traditional > understanding of gender, for example). Collective rights begin with the > premise that the group has a claim to make. Historically, we can see > numerous examples of group treatment (generally negative). In the Roman > Empire, for example, Jews possessed the status of a religio licita, and as > such enjoyed specific rights as Jews--the right not to work on the Sabbath, > or to recognize the divinity of the Emperor. Such rights were granted to the > Jewish collective and thus to the individual Jew of the Empire by virtue of > being Jewish and thus distinct from Greeks or Syrians or Celts in the > Empire. The Ottoman Empire was governed under the millet system, by which > each group in the Empire was defined via their religious community. Thus, > people living in the same town but belonging to different faiths had > different rights and obligations on account of their group membership. A > vague notion of collective rights also lay behind the concept of > extra-territoriality, that people, by virtue of their citizenship, in > foreign lands should be governed, not by local law, but by the laws of their > originating state. ---- from a Lecture of Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor > of The National Interest and a Senior Fellow in Strategic Studies at The > Nixon Center.* > > Internet Governance Caucus can propose Collective Rights if we would like > to see different bandwidth plans for men and women, priority access for > "backward and "most backward" classes as invented in India, publishing > space discrimination between different churches, and free DVD movies for > those who live in mountains. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > India. > > > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Tapani Tarvainen < > tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder ( > parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right > as > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural > rights, > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to > say > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective. > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > would have because of their membership in a group. > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these > rights, > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may > be > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and > need > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. > > That might be a useful approach. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 > > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 8 16:54:05 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:54:05 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3556A1C23849411B8567FED959E9B59F@IAN> Hi Sivasubramanian, Our issue here is to prepare a paper (or papers) for submission within about 3 days from now. I doubt we can thoroughly explore any of these proposed themes in that timeframe. We might have a lot of passion and differing viewpoints on rights and how they relate to Internet governance, that to me makes it a great subject for further exploration with all stakeholders. 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 _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2008 06:48 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Peter wrote: within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) Hello Ian and Parminder, I have one of Parminder's documents embedded in my blog and took a rapid look at it to find interesting alternatives to the theme of rights, and found that the document talks about Internet as Public Infrastructure. There has been a lot of passion about this topic of "rights" but this topic is dangerous territory. Can we think of "Internet as Public Infrastructure" as the overwhelming theme of the IGF, Cairo? The other themes that occurred to me are "Depoliticizing the Internet", again from Parminder's document, but this theme again is a double edged sword like the theme of "Rights" and would charge the IGF atmosphere with a lot of political debates. One more theme could be the broad theme of "preserving the essential characteristics of the Internet in the process of unrestrained growth" or even simply "Internet for the next billion users- challenges in 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 _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2008 04:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Hello Parminder and All, All the heat is about the connotations of the term "collective rights". I tried to understand the distinction between individual right and collective right and this is what I found: Individual Rights apply to the generic individual without regard to his or her identity.... These rights are determined with no knowledge of what our actual economic standing, educational level, gender, or ethnic origin would be. Most international and national formulations of human rights are drafted in such a way as to apply to a generic individual. Collective rights, however, do not start with the individual but rather with a specific group. Individuals are defined by their membership in that group, which thus differentiates them from others in society. Some collectives are formed by choice (religious affiliation in the United States, for example). Others are predetermined (the traditional understanding of gender, for example). Collective rights begin with the premise that the group has a claim to make. Historically, we can see numerous examples of group treatment (generally negative). In the Roman Empire, for example, Jews possessed the status of a religio licita, and as such enjoyed specific rights as Jews--the right not to work on the Sabbath, or to recognize the divinity of the Emperor. Such rights were granted to the Jewish collective and thus to the individual Jew of the Empire by virtue of being Jewish and thus distinct from Greeks or Syrians or Celts in the Empire. The Ottoman Empire was governed under the millet system, by which each group in the Empire was defined via their religious community. Thus, people living in the same town but belonging to different faiths had different rights and obligations on account of their group membership. A vague notion of collective rights also lay behind the concept of extra-territoriality, that people, by virtue of their citizenship, in foreign lands should be governed, not by local law, but by the laws of their originating state. ---- from a Lecture of Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor of The National Interest and a Senior Fellow in Strategic Studies at The Nixon Center. Internet Governance Caucus can propose Collective Rights if we would like to see different bandwidth plans for men and women, priority access for "backward and "most backward" classes as invented in India, publishing space discrimination between different churches, and free DVD movies for those who live in mountains. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. India. On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right as > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural rights, > minority rights, right to development etc. > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to say > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective. I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals would have because of their membership in a group. The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these rights, > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may be > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and need > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. That might be a useful approach. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 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 -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 17:15:51 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 02:45:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <3556A1C23849411B8567FED959E9B59F@IAN> References: <3556A1C23849411B8567FED959E9B59F@IAN> Message-ID: Hello Ian Peter, Thank you for your response. If there is too little time to go over alternative themes the Caucus could continue perfecting this proposal. I do agree that this is a great topic but the topic is so sensitive and tricky that it needs to be very carefully defined. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India. On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Sivasubramanian, > > > > > > Our issue here is to prepare a paper (or papers) for submission within > about 3 days from now. I doubt we can thoroughly explore any of these > proposed themes in that timeframe. > > > > We might have a lot of passion and differing viewpoints on rights and how > they relate to Internet governance, that to me makes it a great subject for > further exploration with all stakeholders. > > > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 09 September 2008 06:48 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main > theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) > > > Hello Ian and Parminder, > > I have one of Parminder's documents embedded in my blog and took a rapid > look at it to find interesting alternatives to the theme of rights, and > found that the document talks about Internet as Public Infrastructure. > > There has been a lot of passion about this topic of "rights" but this topic > is dangerous territory. Can we think of "Internet as Public Infrastructure" > as the overwhelming theme of the IGF, Cairo? > > The other themes that occurred to me are "Depoliticizing the Internet", > again from Parminder's document, but this theme again is a double edged > sword like the theme of "Rights" and would charge the IGF atmosphere with a > lot of political debates. > > One more theme could be the broad theme of "preserving the essential > characteristics of the Internet in the process of unrestrained growth" or > even simply "Internet for the next billion users- challenges in 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 09 September 2008 04:35 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Hello Parminder and All, > > > > All the heat is about the connotations of the term "collective rights". I > tried to understand the distinction between individual right and collective > right and this is what I found: > > *Individual Rights apply to the generic individual without regard to his > or her identity.... These rights are determined with no knowledge of what > our actual economic standing, educational level, gender, or ethnic origin > would be. Most international and national formulations of human rights are > drafted in such a way as to apply to a generic individual.* > > *Collective rights, however, do not start with the individual but rather > with a specific group. Individuals are defined by their membership in that > group, which thus differentiates them from others in society. Some > collectives are formed by choice (religious affiliation in the United > States, for example). Others are predetermined (the traditional > understanding of gender, for example). Collective rights begin with the > premise that the group has a claim to make. Historically, we can see > numerous examples of group treatment (generally negative). In the Roman > Empire, for example, Jews possessed the status of a religio licita, and as > such enjoyed specific rights as Jews--the right not to work on the Sabbath, > or to recognize the divinity of the Emperor. Such rights were granted to the > Jewish collective and thus to the individual Jew of the Empire by virtue of > being Jewish and thus distinct from Greeks or Syrians or Celts in the > Empire. The Ottoman Empire was governed under the millet system, by which > each group in the Empire was defined via their religious community. Thus, > people living in the same town but belonging to different faiths had > different rights and obligations on account of their group membership. A > vague notion of collective rights also lay behind the concept of > extra-territoriality, that people, by virtue of their citizenship, in > foreign lands should be governed, not by local law, but by the laws of their > originating state. ---- from a Lecture of Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor > of The National Interest and a Senior Fellow in Strategic Studies at The > Nixon Center.* > > Internet Governance Caucus can propose Collective Rights if we would like > to see different bandwidth plans for men and women, priority access for > "backward and "most backward" classes as invented in India, publishing > space discrimination between different churches, and free DVD movies for > those who live in mountains. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > India. > > > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Tapani Tarvainen < > tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder ( > parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right > as > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural > rights, > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to > say > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective. > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > would have because of their membership in a group. > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these > rights, > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may > be > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and > need > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. > > That might be a useful approach. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 PM > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 8 17:53:40 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809081535.m88FZfxJ013537@mx3.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E71B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809081535.m88FZfxJ013537@mx3.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215142@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Now, the question is, would you agree to IGC making a statement that > captures this 'reality' of contestation in a straightforward manner. > > Something like - 'While FoE and privacy rights are important > they may need to be balanced with considerations of cultural diversity, > security etc'. or even '....some think they need to be balanced with...' Yes, to the latter formulation. I.e., if we were seeking consensus on a statement, I would have to agree with this formulation: 'While in civil society believe FoE and privacy rights are of paramount importance, others in CS think they need to be balanced with considerations of cultural diversity, security....' How could I _not_ accept that as a true statement, one that attempts to be fair to the people in the caucus who don't agree with me (and others) about stronger FoE and privacy rights? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 7 20:08:24 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:08:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] [FwdFYI to: [Ip-health] Last call: Stop secret treaty threatening generics (ACTA)]] Message-ID: <48C46CF8.6E391B28@ix.netcom.com> All, Forwarding this as it directly relates to our debate and discussion regarding Rights. Please excuse any interuption that you may consider. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Ip-health] Last call: Stop secret treaty threatening generics (ACTA)] Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:55:45 -0400 From: Sarah Rimmington To: Ip-health at lists.essential.org We now have 106 endorsements (65 organizations and 41 individuals) for the sign-on letter re the Anti-Counterfeiting treaty, which may threaten access to generic meds globally. The list is below the intro note and draft letter, below. If you would like to endorse the letter, please send me a note by Monday September 8, 2008 (or even very early Tuesday morning, EST)! Sarah Dear Friends, The United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand are now negotiating a new treaty known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The text of what they are negotiating remains secret, but there's a lot to be worried about. An over-reaching treaty in this field could undermine access to low-cost generic medicines, require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to monitor all consumers' Internet communications, and interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials, among many other dangers. Does the proposed ACTA contain provisions that would result in these harmful effects? There's no way to know, because the treaty text remains secret. There is no legitimate rationale for such secrecy, which denies people around the world an opportunity to comment on and influence the negotiations. We are asking organizations and individuals from around the world to sign on to a letter to ACTA negotiators, asking that they immediately make public the draft text of the treaty. The text of the letter, with initial signatories, is below. If you would like to sign the letter, please send your name, affiliation (if any), city/country and email address to Sarah Rimmington of Essential Action at: . Please specify if you are signing in your individual capacity or on behalf of an organization. **Pleaase note: Our deadline for accepting signatures is Wednesday, August 20, 2008.** For open and accountable government, Robert Weissman and Sarah Rimmington, Essential Action --- For more on ACTA, see: --- LETTER TO ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATORS Dear [Negotiator], We are writing to urge the negotiators of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to agree to publish immediately the draft text of the agreement, as well as pre-draft discussion papers (especially for portions for which no draft text yet exists), before continuing further discussions over the treaty. We ask also that you publish the agenda for negotiating sessions and treaty-related meetings in advance of such meetings, and publish a list of participants in the negotiations. There is no legitimate rationale to keep the treaty text secret, and manifold reasons for immediate publication. The trade in products intended to deceive consumers as to who made them poses important but complicated public policy issues. An overbroad or poorly drafted international instrument on counterfeiting could have very harmful consequences. Based on news reports and published material from various business associations, we are deeply concerned about matters such as whether the treaty will: * Require Internet Service Providers to monitor all consumers' Internet communications, terminate their customers' Internet connections based on rights holders' repeat allegation of copyright infringement, and divulge the identity of alleged copyright infringers possibly without judicial process, threatening Internet users' due process and privacy rights; and potentially make ISPs liable for their end users' alleged infringing activity; * Interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials; * Criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing; * Interfere with legitimate parallel trade in goods, including the resale of brand-name pharmaceutical products; * Impose liability on manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), if those APIs are used to make counterfeits -- a liability system that may make API manufacturers reluctant to sell to legal generic drug makers, and thereby significantly damage the functioning of the legal generic pharmaceutical industry; * Improperly criminalize acts not done for commercial purpose and with no public health consequences; and * Improperly divert public resources into enforcement of private rights. Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited. Equally, because the treaty text and relevant discussion documents remain secret, treaty negotiators are denied the insights and perspectives that public interest organizations and individuals could offer. Public review of the texts and a meaningful ability to comment would, among other benefits, help prevent unanticipated pernicious problems arising from the treaty. Such unforeseen outcomes are not unlikely, given the complexity of the issues involved. The lack of transparency in negotiations of an agreement that will affect the fundamental rights of citizens of the world is fundamentally undemocratic. It is made worse by the public perception that lobbyists from the music, film, software, video games, luxury goods and pharmaceutical industries have had ready access to the ACTA text and pre-text discussion documents through long-standing communication channels. The G8's recent Declaration on the World Economy implored negotiators to include ACTA negotiations this year. The speed of the negotiations makes it imperative that relevant text and documents be made available to the citizens of the world immediately. We look forward to your response, and to working with you toward resolution of our concerns. Sincerely, [List in Formation] **Organizations** Act Up East Bay Oakland, CA, USA Act Up Paris Paris, France African Underprivileged Children's Foundation (AUCF) Lagos, Nigeria AIDS Access Foundation Thailand American Medical Student Association Reston, VA, USA ASEED Europe Amsterdam, The Netherlands Australian Digital Alliance Kingston, Australia Australian National University Canberra, Australia Australian Privacy Foundation Sydney, Australia Bharatiya Krishakn Samaj New Delhi, India The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network Toronto, Canada The Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law The Canadian Library Association Ottawa, Canada Center for Democracy and Technology Washington, DC Center for Digital Democracy Washington, DC The Center for Women's Culture & Theory Korea Christian Media Network Korea CHOICE (Australian Consumers Association) Marrickville, Australia Consumentenbond The Hague, Netherlands Consumer Action San Francisco, CA, USA Consumer Federation of America Washington, DC, USA Consumers Union. Publisher of Consumer Reports Yonkers, NY, USA Consumers Union of Japan (ihon Shohisha Renmei) Tokyo, Japan La Corporacion Opcion por el Derecho a Ser y el Deber de Hacer, NIT Bogotá, Colombia Corporate Europe Observatory Amsterdam, The Netherlands Cultural Action Korea Electronic Frontier Foundation San Francisco, CA, USA Electronic Frontiers Australia Adelaide, Australia The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC, USA Essential Action Washington, DC, USA European AIDS Treatment Group (EATG) Brussels, Belgium Foreign Policy in Focus Institute for Policy Studies Washington, DC Foundation For Consumers (FFC) Thailand Foundation for Media Alternatives Philippines Free Press Washington, DC, USA Global Trade Watch Washington, DC USA Gram Bharati Samiti Society for Rural Development Amber, India Gyeonggi NGO Network Korea Health Action International (HAI) – Asia Pacific Colombo, Sri Lanka Health Action International (HAI) – Europe Amsterdam, The Netherlands Health Action International (HAI) – Global Amsterdam, The Netherlands Health Action International – Latin America & Caribbean Lima, Perú Health GAP (Global Access Project) Philadelphia, PA, USA Information & Culture Nuri for the Disabled Korea International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) The Hague, Netherlands IP Justice San Francisco, CA, USA IPLeft Seoul, Korea Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) Washington, DC, USA Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet Seoul, Korea Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre Lagos, Nigeria Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit India Media Access Project Washington, DC, USA La Mesa de ONGs Con Trabajo en VIH/SIDA Bogotá, Colombia National Consumer Council (NCC) London, UK People's Coalition for Media Reform Seoul, Korea Positive Malaysian Treatment Access & Advocacy Group (MTAAG+). Malaysia Privacy Activism USA Privacy Rights Clearinghouse San Diego, CA, USA Public Knowledge Washington, DC, USA Social movement to combat private media ownership and enhance public media Korea Swisslinux.org Mayens-de-Chamoson, Switzerland The Transparency and Accountability Network New York, NY, USA Third World Network Malaysia Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) Berkeley, CA, USA U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Washington, DC, USA **Individuals** Jamie Acosta Miami, FL, USA Jennifer Bruenger Reference Librarian & Education Program Coordinator Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering & Technology Mission, KS, USA Sae-Rom Chae University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine Chicago, IL, USA Sylvia Caras Santa Cruz, CA, USA Jeff Chester Executive Director Center for Digital Democracy Washington, DC USA Don Christie President New Zealand Open Source Society Mark R. Costa Clay, NY, USA Chris Curry MD/PhD Candidate Loyola University Chicago Forest Park, IL, USA Anke Dahrendorf (LL.M.) Junior Researcher, International and European Law University of Maastricht Maastricht, The Netherlands Professor Peter Evans Department of Sociology University of California, Berkeley, USA John Dillon Program Coordinator KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives Toronto, Canada Thomas Alured Faunce Assoc. Professor, College of Law Assoc. Professor, Medical School, College of Medicine and Health Sciences Australian National University Canberra, Australia Professor Brian Fitzgerald Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Faculty Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia Sean Flynn, Associate Director Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property American University Washington College of Law Washington DC, USA Maurice J. Freedman Past President, American Library Association Mount Kisco, Ny, USA Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce Law University of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada Jonathan Walter Giehl Ocala, Florida, USA Mark W. Heffington, M.D. Cashiers, NC, USA Matthew Herder Visiting Professor of Law Loyola University Chicago Chicago,IL, USA Ellen ‘t Hoen , LLM Campaign for Essential Medicines Medecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) Geneva, Switzerland Dr. KR John Dept. of Community Health Christian Medical College Vellore, India Alison Katz Member People’s Health Movement and Centre Europe Tiers Monde Geneva, Switzerland Adam M Kost Student University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine Chicago, IL, USA Nicholas J. Lusiani International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ESCR-Net / Red-DESC / Réseau-DESC New York, NY, USA Hamish MacEwan Open ICT Consultant Wellington, New Zealand Eduardo Mayorga ALAFAR Quito, Ecuador Ibraheem Naeem Medical student Lahore, Pakistan Dr. Pat Neuwelt Public Health Physician and Professor Mt Albert, Auckland, New Zealand Ahti Otala Espoo, Finland Frank Ottey Media, PA, USA Kevin Outterson Associate Professor of Law & Director of the Health Law Program Boston University School of Law A. Sankar Executive Director EMPOWER Tuticorin, India Dr Canan Sargin, MD UNICEF Ankara, Turkey Professor Susan K. Sell George Washington University Washington, DC USA Aaron Shaw Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Dr. Mira Shiva, M.D. People's Health Initiative, India Dr. Vandana Shiva Navdanya, India Wilma Teran Pharmaceutical Biochemist, Public Health Platform on Access to Medicines and Intellectual Property La Paz, Bolivia Mike Waghorne Esquibien, France Professor Kimberlee Weatherall TC Beirne School of Law The University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia Patricia Whelehan, Ph.D Professor, Anthropology State University of New York-Potsdam Potsdam, NY, USA --- (Attachment to Sign-on Letter): OPENNESS IN TRADE AND OTHER MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS Negotiating texts are commonly made public in multilateral trade negotiation, although some trade negotiations are characterized by secrecy. Examples of negotiations where texts are or were made public include: * The current Doha Round negotiations at the World Trade Organization; http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm * The Free Trade Area of the Americas; http://www.ftaa-alca.org/FTAADraft03/Index_e.asp * The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (although initial texts were not made public) http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3343,en_2649_33783766_1894819_1_1_1_1,00.html * Draft text at the World Health Organization, where resolutions are published in advance of consideration and treaty or treaty-like negotiations are handled openly, including this example of follow-on negotiations for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: http://www.who.int/gb/fctc/ * The World Intellectual Property Organization, including this example of a draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=57213 -- Sarah Rimmington Attorney Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project Washington, DC Tel: (202) 387-8030 Cell: (202) 422-2687 www.essentialaction.org/access/ _______________________________________________ Ip-health mailing list Ip-health at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 8 18:16:51 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:16:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <10B25045821A4E2A8600AE636BE3A398@IAN> References: <10B25045821A4E2A8600AE636BE3A398@IAN> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215143@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a collective right? No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that it may be a bit too in-your-face. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 7 20:29:04 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:29:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215115@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200809050742.m857ghLL026046@mx2.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215127@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C471D0.9BE1A254@ix.netcom.com> Robin and all, I fully agree. Robin Gross wrote: > I haven't been able to keep up on this discussion as I would have > liked to, but I wanted to weigh in (hopefully not too late and off > topic). I also have deep concerns about promoting "collective" rights > because I see them as subordinating individual rights in potentially > dangerous ways (although no harm is intended). It is the sovereign > individual that is ultimately responsible. Individuals acting > together can be collectives, but it always breaks down to the > individual in the end. RobinOn Sep 5, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Milton L > Mueller wrote: > >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would >> expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this >> process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. >> Agreed. >> >> It is important to recognize that there are two important >> and different contestations here. One, whether there is at >> all a category of positive and collective rights in any >> case whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very >> small minority among the IGC membership that really >> contests the very validity of the category of positive and >> collective rights. I invite members’ comments on this >> statement. Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement >> should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these >> categories of rights. I would therefore want all >> corresponding parts of the statement removed. >> But there is no doubt about the fact that it is >> contested.. And it is not just me, three or four others >> have taken up this discussion more or less from my point >> of view. Based on the list dialogue this would look like >> almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small >> minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is >> contested, and if the statement doesn't reflect that I >> will opt out of it and issue a separate statement >> contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an >> expression of IGC. >> >> The second contestation is about whether there are some >> already accepted extensions of positive and collective >> rights to the Internet – right to access internet >> (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an >> Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I >> agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group >> at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak >> of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. >> Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of ‘wanting >> to explore’ with regard to these rights. >> I did not delete that language, in regard to >> RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to >> "explore" contested issues. >> >> >> “The openness and diversity of the internet are >> underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly >> enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to >> freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be >> useful to explore if and whether positive and collective >> rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet – for >> instance a right to Internet access, or a right of >> cultural expression - including the right to have an >> Internet in ones own language, which can inform the >> important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.” >> >> This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there >> are significant participants in CS who contest the >> positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. >> >> “We recognize that while it is relatively easy to >> articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to >> implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights >> claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. >> For example, a claim that there is a “right to Internet >> access” may imply an obligation on states to fund and >> provide such access, but it is likely that if states are >> responsible for supplying internet access that there will >> also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over >> what content users can access using public funds and >> facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the >> proper application of a rights claim to a factual >> situation. The change in the technical methods of >> communication often undermines pre-existing understandings >> of how to apply legal categories. “ >> >> This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right >> to the Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those >> who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. >> So people who believe in a positive right to Internet >> access cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can >> be? I think the only thing you need to do is replace "it >> is likely that if states are responsible" with "some fear >> that if states are responsible." That makes it clear that >> there is disagreement. which there is. >> >> I however find the last two sentences – which I know you >> state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access – >> very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I >> discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate >> email. >> The last two sentences were meant to be general, not >> specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle >> applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and >> identity. >> >> I also have problem with the new opening para that you >> propose. >> >> “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it >> reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, >> receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that >> "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and >> security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must >> protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom >> of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva >> Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work >> has been done to enact these commitments to basic human >> rights in Internet governance.” >> >> If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default >> read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and >> very important rights, our effort is to explore the rights >> terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the >> possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be >> globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy >> discussions also lies in making the rights discourse >> broader, >> This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of >> principle. You start with the area where there is the most >> common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is >> that governments have already committed themselves to it, >> I think the line about balancing security concerns with >> other rights is especially important. Even on your own >> expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the >> traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it >> can be taken. >> including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of >> people, which go beyond these two rights. >> Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak >> for the vast majority 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 >> > > IP JUSTICERobin Gross, Executive Director1192 Haight Street, San > Francisco, CA 94117 USAp: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451w: > http://www.ipjustice..org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kieren.mccarthy at icann.org Mon Sep 8 20:06:26 2008 From: kieren.mccarthy at icann.org (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:06:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Geneva meeting Mon 15 Sep Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D788D640A826@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hello all, For any of you going to Geneva next week for the IGF prep meeting, or if you live in Geneva or near to Geneva, can I cordially invite you to a special ICANN meeting on the Monday 15 September at 8am at the Hotel Royal on Rue de Lausanne (the road that links Cornavin with the UN). The meeting is part of a series of regional consultative meetings we are running as part of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" consultation. What is that? It is a number of proposals developed by the President's Strategy Committee to address comments made in the recent Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html). There are three IIC documents, outlined at the Paris meeting in June and which have already been through one public comment period. A second comment period on revised documents is due to start very soon. You can find all three documents, as well as summaries of previous comments and input at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/ (English) http://www.icann.org/fr/jpa/iic/ (Français) http://www.icann.org/es/jpa/iic/ (Español) We expect revised documents to be available in English before the meeting. The goal of the meeting is to explain proposed improvements to the ICANN's multi-stakeholder model and hear participants' views. There will be opportunities for verbal and written input during this meeting, and this input will be thoroughly considered by ICANN's President's Strategy Committee for transmission to the ICANN Board. Members of the President's Strategy Committee and ICANN staff will be present: * Marilyn Cade (United States), President's Strategy Committee member * Yrjö Länsipuro (Finland), President's Strategy Committee member * Theresa Swinehart (ICANN staff), Vice President, Global and Strategic Partnerships * Massimiliano Minisci (ICANN staff), Regional Relations Manager for Europe, * Kieren McCarthy (ICANN staff), General Manager of Public Participation, ICANN DATE: Monday 15 September 2008 TIME: 08:00 sharp till 09:30am (a buffet breakfast will be available from 07:45) PLACE: Hotel Royal, 41 rue de Lausanne (room: Rousseau A), Geneva, Switzerland If you are interested in attending, please REGISTER by following this link: _________________________________________________________ http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/meetings/geneva.htm --------------- http://www.icann.org/it/jpa/iic/ (Italiano) http://www.icann.org/de/jpa/iic/ (Deutsch) http://www.icann.org/pt/jpa/iic/ (Português) ----------------- Thanks and I look forward to seeing you there Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 7 23:21:19 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:21:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Geneva meeting Mon 15 Sep References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D788D640A826@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <48C49A2F.BCA8652@ix.netcom.com> Kieren and all, This is a good idea, but a little short notice. Thanks! >:) I will not be able to attend personally with such short notice, but I will advise our members in the immediate area to do so. Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Hello all, > > For any of you going to Geneva next week for the IGF prep meeting, or > if you live in Geneva or near to Geneva, can I cordially invite you to > a special ICANN meeting on the Monday 15 September at 8am at the Hotel > Royal on Rue de Lausanne (the road that links Cornavin with the UN). > > The meeting is part of a series of regional consultative meetings we > are running as part of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" > consultation. > > What is that? > > It is a number of proposals developed by the President's Strategy > Committee to address comments made in the recent Midterm Review of the > Joint Project Agreement > (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html). > > There are three IIC documents, outlined at the Paris meeting in June > and which have already been through one public comment period. A > second comment period on revised documents is due to start very soon. > You can find all three documents, as well as summaries of previous > comments and input at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/ (English) > > http://www.icann.org/fr/jpa/iic/ (Français) > > http://www.icann.org/es/jpa/iic/ (Español) > > We expect revised documents to be available in English before the > meeting. > > The goal of the meeting is to explain proposed improvements to the > ICANN's multi-stakeholder model and hear participants' views. There > will be opportunities for verbal and written input during this > meeting, and this input will be thoroughly considered by ICANN's > President's Strategy Committee for transmission to the ICANN Board. > > Members of the President’s Strategy Committee and ICANN staff will be > present: > > * Marilyn Cade (United States), President's Strategy Committee > member > > * Yrjö Länsipuro (Finland), President's Strategy Committee member > > * Theresa Swinehart (ICANN staff), Vice President, Global and > Strategic Partnerships > > * Massimiliano Minisci (ICANN staff), Regional Relations Manager > for Europe, > > * Kieren McCarthy (ICANN staff), General Manager of Public > Participation, ICANN > > DATE: Monday 15 September 2008 > > TIME: 08:00 sharp till 09:30am (a buffet breakfast will be available > from 07:45) > > PLACE: Hotel Royal, 41 rue de Lausanne (room: Rousseau A), Geneva, > Switzerland > > If you are interested in attending, please REGISTER by following this > link: > > _________________________________________________________ > > http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/meetings/geneva.htm > > --------------- > > http://www.icann.org/it/jpa/iic/ (Italiano) > > http://www.icann.org/de/jpa/iic/ (Deutsch) > > http://www.icann.org/pt/jpa/iic/ (Português) > > ----------------- > > Thanks and I look forward to seeing you there > > Kieren > > ---------------------- > > Kieren McCarthy > > ---------------------- > > General manager of public participation, ICANN > > http://www.icann.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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 7 23:28:24 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:28:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [At-Large] WashingtonPost: ICANN Accredited Registrar is ConvictedFelon] Message-ID: <48C49BD8.A6B7C99C@ix.netcom.com> All, This might be or some interest. It shows how poorly ICANN's managment has been and continues to be, IMO. Seems that there is a growing trend that others share my opinion. Such demonstrates how self regulation or co-regulation is a very shaky mannor or style, or managment especially if the "Good old boy" element is in control and overly protected due to fees paid to whomever is doing the protecting, in this case, ICANN. Follow the money, and ye shall usually find the ultimate culprit. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [At-Large] WashingtonPost: ICANN Accredited Registrar is ConvictedFelon Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Danny Younger Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide To: NA Discuss CC: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/09/estdomains_a_sordid_history_an.html#more _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 8 23:26:21 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:26:21 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215143@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement Milton and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. But that and many other issues here can wait till another day. The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together - next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. 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 _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 09 September 2008 08:17 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a collective right? No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that it may be a bit too in-your-face. Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 23:52:22 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:22:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215143@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello Milton, "right to have an Internet in ones own language" What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all messages that everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all intgovforum.organd all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any further"? And what if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all documents officially transcribed and published in Tamil? And in Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, in Kannada? There is so much to be DELETED in this draft. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement Milton > and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. But > that and many other issues here can wait till another day. > > > > The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the > submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but > perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together > – next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. > > > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > *Sent:* 09 September 2008 08:17 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a > collective right? > > > > No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different > from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) > societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe > in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the > transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on > individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) > > > > Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach > would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned > corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as > extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the > property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a > modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those > situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist > approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous > minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. > > > > But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing > opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a > statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective > rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make > rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) > > > > That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line > about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other > rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that > it may be a bit too in-your-face. > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 > > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 00:02:21 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:32:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215143@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Meant to be addressed to: Hello Ian and All, (Milton's opinions are well respected. But this message is technically isn't a reply to Milton) On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Milton, > > "right to have an Internet in ones own language" > > What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important > public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all > messages that everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all > intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a > Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any further"? And what > if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil > and all documents officially transcribed and published in Tamil? And in > Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in > Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, > in Kannada? > > There is so much to be DELETED in this draft. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement >> Milton and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. >> But that and many other issues here can wait till another day. >> >> >> >> The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the >> submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but >> perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together >> – next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> *Sent:* 09 September 2008 08:17 >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> >> >> >> So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a >> collective right? >> >> >> >> No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different >> from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) >> societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe >> in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the >> transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on >> individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) >> >> >> >> Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach >> would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned >> corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as >> extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the >> property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a >> modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those >> situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist >> approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous >> minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. >> >> >> >> But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect >> differing opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as >> simple as a statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and >> collective rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is >> to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) >> >> >> >> That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the >> line about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other >> rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that >> it may be a bit too in-your-face. >> >> >> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 >> 1:22 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 >> >> > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 8 03:35:37 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:35:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: Message-ID: <48C4D5C9.4BD3CCF3@ix.netcom.com> Ian, Milton and all, Arn't we getting a bit far afeald here? I don't see womens rights associated with any form of an "Internet bill of Rights"... Ian Peter wrote: > Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement > Milton and I don’t think we need to demand the emphases be exactly > the same. But that and many other issues here can wait till another > day. > > The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the > submission. I’ve enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here > but perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the > text together – next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. > > Ian Peter > > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > > PO Box 10670 Adelaide StBrisbane 4000 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: 09 September 2008 08:17 > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org;Ian Peter > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > From:Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land > rights is a collective right? > > No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are > completely different from the rights of men. In other words, > patriarchal (or matriarchal) societies that assign superior > or different rights based on gender believe in collective > rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the > transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as > individuals are based on individual rights. So now tell me > where you count yourself. ;-) > > Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An > individualist approach would certainly recognize the ability > of groups (e.g., publicly owned corporations or even > political communities) to own land, but see these as > extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). > However, the property rights of a very different culture may > not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and > vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those > situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a > collectivist approach to property rights can just as easily > work against indigenous minorities as for them. I am sure > you know the history. > > But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to > reflect differing opinions. Can’t we find a simple way > forward here? Isn’t it as simple as a statement such as > “while differing opinions on individual and collective > rights exist” within the context of the general request, > which is to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which > doesn’t seem to be disputed) > > That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to > delete the line about how state-provided internet access > might be used to violate other rights, even though I think > the point is true and salient, I recognize that it may be a > bit too in-your-face. > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: > 8/9/2008 1:22 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 9 01:51:22 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:21:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080908171102.GA6075@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20080909055135.4DFCCA6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Tapani > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these > rights, > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may > be > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and > need > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. > > That might be a useful approach. Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive and collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical difference/ meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the indivisibility of human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, including of the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms...' Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', which may relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas because if we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward towards achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to underpin IGF's deliberations. In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important in this context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full range of IGF's work and discussions. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right > as > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural > rights, > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to > say > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective. > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > would have because of their membership in a group. > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these > rights, > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may > be > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and > need > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. > > That might be a useful approach. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 9 01:53:17 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:23:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080909055329.3B468A6C50@smtp2.electricembers.net> >"right to have an Internet in ones own language" >What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all messages that >everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to >progress any further"? And what if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all documents officially transcribed and published >in Tamil? And in Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in >Assamese, in Kannada? Siva While I do agree with your earlier proposition that care must taken that governments do not wrongly exploit the language of right, I cant agree with the basis of your above understanding of 'rights'. A 'right' isn't an electrical switch, which if pressed and full outcome is not realized, the 'right' can be said to be meaningless. (This is true of all right - negative and positive.) You may want to try your above analysis of 'meaninglessness' of linguistic rights on the Internet to the 'right of education' enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was done in 1948, however universal primary education is far from being completely realized. However, the existence of this 'right' gives civil society the basis and strength for making a strong political claim to universalisation of education policies, a struggle which is being keenly fought in India right now, when the right to education bill in final stages, while neoliberal influences in the government, who are more worried over India's corporate performance, are actively trying to stall it by citing funding problems. Another example; India's trade minister recently justified India's tough stance at the WTO negotiations on safeguards aimed at protecting vulnerable farmers in India, stated that he cannot back down on this issue because it is not about commercial interests of India, on which negotiations are possible, but it is about right of livelihood of Indian people. You can see how a 'rights' claim differentiates and makes for higher and stronger basis than a mere ordinary political claim, like protecting India' commercial interests. But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in the trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights - like right to livelihood or work, which he see as the right of everyone and anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we would gladly employ Milton :-). Parminder _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Meant to be addressed to: Hello Ian and All, (Milton's opinions are well respected. But this message is technically isn't a reply to Milton) On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello Milton, "right to have an Internet in ones own language" What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all messages that everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any further"? And what if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all documents officially transcribed and published in Tamil? And in Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, in Kannada? There is so much to be DELETED in this draft. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement Milton and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. But that and many other issues here can wait till another day. The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together - next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. 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 _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 09 September 2008 08:17 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a collective right? No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that it may be a bit too in-your-face. Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 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 -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 8 04:06:54 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:06:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD902215143@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C4DD1E.71793866@ix.netcom.com> Sivasubramanian, and all, Good point! As I have stated already, a "right to have an Internet in ones own language" is a good goal, but not a reasonable "Right" in any draft of an "Internet bill of Rights". Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Milton, > > "right to have an Internet in ones own language" > > What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important > public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of > all messages that everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all > intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil > in a Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any > further"? And what if I demand the proceedings of the IGF > simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all documents officially > transcribed and published in Tamil? And in Spanish and Portuguese and > American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the language of > the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, in Kannada? > > There is so much to be DELETED in this draft. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights > movement Milton and I don't think we need to demand the > emphases be exactly the same. But that and many other issues > here can wait till another day. > > The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main > thrust of the submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing > points of view here but perhaps now we need to collectively > concentrate on getting the text together – next week the > ongoing debate can happily continue. > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 09 September 2008 08:17 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > --------------------------------------------------- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis > paper > > So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous > land rights is a collective right? > > No, unless you believe that the rights of woman > are completely different from the rights of men. > In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) > societies that assign superior or different rights > based on gender believe in collective rights. > Liberal societies that afford men, women and the > transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as > individuals are based on individual rights. So now > tell me where you count yourself. ;-) > > Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An > individualist approach would certainly recognize > the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned > corporations or even political communities) to own > land, but see these as extensions of individual > rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the > property rights of a very different culture may > not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and > vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle > those situations as a kind of special sovereignty. > However, a collectivist approach to property > rights can just as easily work against indigenous > minorities as for them. I am sure you know the > history. > > But for the sake of this submission, we obviously > need to reflect differing opinions. Can't we find > a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a > statement such as "while differing opinions on > individual and collective rights exist" within the > context of the general request, which is to make > rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem > to be disputed) > > That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be > happy to delete the line about how state-provided > internet access might be used to violate other > rights, even though I think the point is true and > salient, I recognize that it may be a bit too > in-your-face. > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release > Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 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 > > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 02:33:13 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:03:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <48c60f59.1f588c0a.3083.7a35SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <48c60f59.1f588c0a.3083.7a35SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, Ian an All, On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Parminder wrote: Siva > > > While I do agree with your earlier proposition that care must taken that > governments do not wrongly exploit the language of right, I cant agree with > the basis of your above understanding of 'rights'. > > A 'right' isn't an electrical switch, which if pressed and full outcome is > not realized, the 'right' can be said to be meaningless. (This is true of > all right – negative and positive.) > > You may want to try your above analysis of 'meaninglessness' of linguistic > rights on the Internet to the 'right of education' enshrined in the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was done in 1948, however > universal primary education is far from being completely realized. However, > the existence of this 'right' gives civil society the basis and strength for > making a strong political claim to universalisation of education policies, a > struggle which is being keenly fought in India right now, when the right to > education bill in final stages, while neoliberal influences in the > government, who are more worried over India's corporate performance, are > actively trying to stall it by citing funding problems. > > Another example; India's trade minister recently justified India's tough > stance at the WTO negotiations on safeguards aimed at protecting vulnerable > farmers in India, stated that he cannot back down on this issue because it > is not about commercial interests of India, on which negotiations are > possible, but it is about right of livelihood of Indian people. You can see > how a 'rights' claim differentiates and makes for higher and stronger basis > than a mere ordinary political claim, like protecting India' commercial > interests. > ....... > >"right to have an Internet in ones own language" > > >What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important > public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all > messages that >everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all > intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a > Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to >progress any further"? And what > if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil > and all documents officially transcribed and published >in Tamil? And in > Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in > Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in > >Assamese, in Kannada? > If it not obvious, what I wrote as above is nonsense. I wrote nonsense to hint at the shape of demands to come if we are to take the rights based approach. My apologies to All for going into the basics when it is about time to conclude. "right to have an Internet in ones own language" as an example sentence: No one woke up Eric Schmidt with thunderous slogans in the middle of the night to demand Google to translate. And no one wrote to his or her parliamentary representative to raise a question in parliament to initiate a debate to pass a resolution to direct the Government to instruct the Ambassador to the United Nations to introduce a draft resolution, diplomatically maneuver to get it voted upon resolving that the General Assembly calling upon the Government of United States to direct the US Department of Commerce to arm twist Google into translating search results and web pages. Google Translate happened, more out of Google Community participation than by the users demanding Translation as a matter of right. The Internet has worked, is working and will work - on its own. *The Internet is not machines or wires, it is people*. The Internet is 1.3 billion people today, would be 6 billion people tomorrow. People create and participate. That is the magic of Internet. Internet relies on collaboration and on processes that are local, bottom-up, open and accessible to individuals around the world. This model clearly works and works well. Progress has happened, is happening and will happen on the Internet, not by declaring rights or demanding enforcement of rights. The Internet organizations largely grew up organically, and work together in a collaborative manner, respecting each other's needs, roles and expertise. They are not hierarchically organized, and all understand and respect the interdependencies and inherent needs Progress and Innovation happens not by public, collective or individual "demand" but by public, collective and individual participation in the processes. The common vision is that of an open, accessible and global Internet. So far it has been happening, not on demand, not by declaring and clamoring for rights, b participation. The Internet - the people - participate, discuss and cause everything desirable to happen. What worries me is this: Take a look at a title such as a "peace keeping coalition force". What does it do? It goes to war. Think along these lines. What would happen if you debate about rights and draw up a "Declaration of Internet Rights"? You will end up creating rules. > But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in the > trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights – like > right to livelihood or work, which he see as the right of everyone and > anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we would > gladly employ Milton J. > > I would argue for or against what Milton says, for or against what you or Ian say, but wouldn't make it personal. Have you run out of arguments against Milton? Is that the reason why you have picked up on him as a person? ( not that I know Milton or fallen in Milton's "trap". It is very imaginative to have thought of a Milton's trap ) > Parminder > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:32 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Meant to be addressed to: Hello Ian and All, (Milton's opinions are well > respected. But this message is technically isn't a reply to Milton) > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Milton, > > > > "right to have an Internet in ones own language" > > What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important > public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all > messages that everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all > intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a > Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any further"? And what > if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil > and all documents officially transcribed and published in Tamil? And in > Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in > Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, > in Kannada? > > There is so much to be DELETED in this draft. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement > Milton and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. > But that and many other issues here can wait till another day. > > > > The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the > submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but > perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together > – next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. > > > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > *Sent:* 09 September 2008 08:17 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a > collective right? > > > > No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different > from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) > societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe > in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the > transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on > individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) > > > > Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach > would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned > corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as > extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the > property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a > modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those > situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist > approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous > minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. > > > > But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing > opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a > statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective > rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make > rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) > > > > That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line > about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other > rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that > it may be a bit too in-your-face. > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 9 03:29:53 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:59:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> >>But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in the trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights - like right to livelihood or >>work, which he see as the right of everyone and anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we would gladly employ Milton :-). >I would argue for or against what Milton says, for or against what you or Ian say, but wouldn't make it personal. Have you run >out of arguments against Milton? Is >that the reason why you have picked up on him as a person? ( not that I know Milton or >fallen in Milton's "trap". It is very imaginative to have thought of a >Milton's trap ) Siva I didn't say anything personal to Milton. He wrote twice, give me a guaranteed job at ITfC when I spoke of positive rights. I did not reply because I thought it was a diversion. But it is a straight forward thing to call it a polemical trap, which it most definitely is. I see nothing wrong in it, and don't think even Milton does. BTW, you may have missed that Milton said yesterday that I may be being dishonest, and also that I was trying rhetoric. Do you think it is personal? (Though I am not complaining.) You now do say 'I wrote nonsense to hint at the.' whereby you are agreeing that you caricatured the cited 'right'. I said that such caricaturing approach is problematic, and argued cited other positive rights - just my view.. > My apologies to All for going into the basics when it is about time to conclude Not at all. Basics are important in this debate. > The Internet has worked, is working and will work - on its own. What has happened with the Internet is of course extra-ordinary. But if 'working on its own' was all that is needed we are all here on a civil society policy discussion/ advocacy forum are wasting our time, aren't we. >., not by declaring rights or demanding enforcement of rights. It is fine that you hold the view that a rights-based approach is not useful in this area, and give your arguments. >Google Translate happened, more out of Google Community participation than by the users demanding Translation as a matter >of right. Lets hope that the same will automatically and spontaneously happen on and about Google with regard to privacy, and freedom of expression of different viewpoints and sources of knowledge (commercial and non-commercial, those under-privileged with less 'voice' and those with dominant presence etc etc.) But yes, this discussion is certainly useful. Parminder _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:03 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Hello Parminder, Ian an All, On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Parminder wrote: Siva While I do agree with your earlier proposition that care must taken that governments do not wrongly exploit the language of right, I cant agree with the basis of your above understanding of 'rights'. A 'right' isn't an electrical switch, which if pressed and full outcome is not realized, the 'right' can be said to be meaningless. (This is true of all right - negative and positive.) You may want to try your above analysis of 'meaninglessness' of linguistic rights on the Internet to the 'right of education' enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was done in 1948, however universal primary education is far from being completely realized. However, the existence of this 'right' gives civil society the basis and strength for making a strong political claim to universalisation of education policies, a struggle which is being keenly fought in India right now, when the right to education bill in final stages, while neoliberal influences in the government, who are more worried over India's corporate performance, are actively trying to stall it by citing funding problems. Another example; India's trade minister recently justified India's tough stance at the WTO negotiations on safeguards aimed at protecting vulnerable farmers in India, stated that he cannot back down on this issue because it is not about commercial interests of India, on which negotiations are possible, but it is about right of livelihood of Indian people. You can see how a 'rights' claim differentiates and makes for higher and stronger basis than a mere ordinary political claim, like protecting India' commercial interests. ....... >"right to have an Internet in ones own language" >What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all messages that >everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to >progress any further"? And what if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all documents officially transcribed and published >in Tamil? And in Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in >Assamese, in Kannada? If it not obvious, what I wrote as above is nonsense. I wrote nonsense to hint at the shape of demands to come if we are to take the rights based approach. My apologies to All for going into the basics when it is about time to conclude. "right to have an Internet in ones own language" as an example sentence: No one woke up Eric Schmidt with thunderous slogans in the middle of the night to demand Google to translate. And no one wrote to his or her parliamentary representative to raise a question in parliament to initiate a debate to pass a resolution to direct the Government to instruct the Ambassador to the United Nations to introduce a draft resolution, diplomatically maneuver to get it voted upon resolving that the General Assembly calling upon the Government of United States to direct the US Department of Commerce to arm twist Google into translating search results and web pages. Google Translate happened, more out of Google Community participation than by the users demanding Translation as a matter of right. The Internet has worked, is working and will work - on its own. The Internet is not machines or wires, it is people. The Internet is 1.3 billion people today, would be 6 billion people tomorrow. People create and participate. That is the magic of Internet. Internet relies on collaboration and on processes that are local, bottom-up, open and accessible to individuals around the world. This model clearly works and works well. Progress has happened, is happening and will happen on the Internet, not by declaring rights or demanding enforcement of rights. The Internet organizations largely grew up organically, and work together in a collaborative manner, respecting each other's needs, roles and expertise. They are not hierarchically organized, and all understand and respect the interdependencies and inherent needs Progress and Innovation happens not by public, collective or individual "demand" but by public, collective and individual participation in the processes. The common vision is that of an open, accessible and global Internet. So far it has been happening, not on demand, not by declaring and clamoring for rights, b participation. The Internet - the people - participate, discuss and cause everything desirable to happen. What worries me is this: Take a look at a title such as a "peace keeping coalition force". What does it do? It goes to war. Think along these lines. What would happen if you debate about rights and draw up a "Declaration of Internet Rights"? You will end up creating rules. But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in the trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights - like right to livelihood or work, which he see as the right of everyone and anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we would gladly employ Milton :-). I would argue for or against what Milton says, for or against what you or Ian say, but wouldn't make it personal. Have you run out of arguments against Milton? Is that the reason why you have picked up on him as a person? ( not that I know Milton or fallen in Milton's "trap". It is very imaginative to have thought of a Milton's trap ) Parminder _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Meant to be addressed to: Hello Ian and All, (Milton's opinions are well respected. But this message is technically isn't a reply to Milton) On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello Milton, "right to have an Internet in ones own language" What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all messages that everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any further"? And what if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all documents officially transcribed and published in Tamil? And in Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, in Kannada? There is so much to be DELETED in this draft. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement Milton and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. But that and many other issues here can wait till another day. The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together - next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. 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 _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 09 September 2008 08:17 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a collective right? No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that it may be a bit too in-your-face. Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 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 -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 03:53:53 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:23:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder and All, On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Parminder wrote: > >>But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in > the trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights – > like right to livelihood or >>work, which he see as the right of everyone > and anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we > would gladly employ Milton J. > > >I would argue for or against what Milton says, for or against what you or > Ian say, but wouldn't make it personal. Have you run >out of arguments > against Milton? Is >that the reason why you have picked up on him as a > person? ( not that I know Milton or >fallen in Milton's "trap". It is very > imaginative to have thought of a >Milton's trap ) > > Siva > > I didn't say anything personal to Milton. > Taken and accepted on your word. I don't understand the history you have given below, but what you say about not meaning any thing personal is taken on your word. > He wrote twice, give me a guaranteed job at ITfC when I spoke of positive > rights. I did not reply because I thought it was a diversion. But it is a > straight forward thing to call it a polemical trap, which it most definitely > is. I see nothing wrong in it, and don't think even Milton does. BTW, you > may have missed that Milton said yesterday that I may be being dishonest, > and also that I was trying rhetoric. Do you think it is personal? (Though I > am not complaining.) > You now do say 'I wrote nonsense to hint at the…' whereby you are agreeing > that you caricatured the cited 'right'. I said that such caricaturing > approach is problematic, and argued cited other positive rights – just my > view…. > I meant "nonsense" in the sense 'ridicule' to illustrate ridiculous situations that we may have to face if the Internet is to move to a rights based approach. > > My apologies to All for going into the basics when it is about time to > conclude > > Not at all. Basics are important in this debate. > Thanks. > > The Internet has worked, is working and will work - on its own. > > What has happened with the Internet is of course extra-ordinary. But if > 'working on its own' was all that is needed we are all here on a civil > society policy discussion/ advocacy forum are wasting our time, aren't we. > I would say that the Internet progressed and worked with least interference, in the absence of intervention and that this essential nature of Internet needs to be preserved. > >…, not by declaring rights or demanding enforcement of rights. > > It is fine that you hold the view that a rights-based approach is not > useful in this area, and give your arguments. > > >Google Translate happened, more out of Google Community participation than > by the users demanding Translation as a matter >of right. > Lets hope that the same will automatically and spontaneously happen on and > about Google with regard to privacy, and freedom of expression of different > viewpoints and sources of knowledge (commercial and non-commercial, those > under-privileged with less 'voice' and those with dominant presence etc > etc.) But yes, this discussion is certainly useful. > Google is a name thrown in, in the context of the participative character of the Internet. It was to make the argument illustrative. Now you are drawing Google into picture in toto. A debate on Google would be a distraction at the moment and it is not fair. Suffice it to say that I mentioned the development of Google Translation, and did not seek to endorse all practices and policies of Google Inc. Let's leave Google alone. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India > > > Parminder > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:03 PM > *To:* Parminder > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Milton L Mueller > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Hello Parminder, Ian an All, > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > Siva > > > While I do agree with your earlier proposition that care must taken that > governments do not wrongly exploit the language of right, I cant agree with > the basis of your above understanding of 'rights'. > > A 'right' isn't an electrical switch, which if pressed and full outcome is > not realized, the 'right' can be said to be meaningless. (This is true of > all right – negative and positive.) > > You may want to try your above analysis of 'meaninglessness' of linguistic > rights on the Internet to the 'right of education' enshrined in the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was done in 1948, however > universal primary education is far from being completely realized. However, > the existence of this 'right' gives civil society the basis and strength for > making a strong political claim to universalisation of education policies, a > struggle which is being keenly fought in India right now, when the right to > education bill in final stages, while neoliberal influences in the > government, who are more worried over India's corporate performance, are > actively trying to stall it by citing funding problems. > > Another example; India's trade minister recently justified India's tough > stance at the WTO negotiations on safeguards aimed at protecting vulnerable > farmers in India, stated that he cannot back down on this issue because it > is not about commercial interests of India, on which negotiations are > possible, but it is about right of livelihood of Indian people. You can see > how a 'rights' claim differentiates and makes for higher and stronger basis > than a mere ordinary political claim, like protecting India' commercial > interests. > > ....... > > >"right to have an Internet in ones own language" > > >What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important > public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all > messages that >everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all > intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a > Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to >progress any further"? And what > if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil > and all documents officially transcribed and published >in Tamil? And in > Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in > Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in > >Assamese, in Kannada? > > If it not obvious, what I wrote as above is nonsense. I wrote nonsense to > hint at the shape of demands to come if we are to take the rights based > approach. > > My apologies to All for going into the basics when it is about time to > conclude. > > "right to have an Internet in ones own language" as an example sentence: > > No one woke up Eric Schmidt with thunderous slogans in the middle of the > night to demand Google to translate. And no one wrote to his or her > parliamentary representative to raise a question in parliament to initiate a > debate to pass a resolution to direct the Government to instruct the > Ambassador to the United Nations to introduce a draft resolution, > diplomatically maneuver to get it voted upon resolving that the General > Assembly calling upon the Government of United States to direct the US > Department of Commerce to arm twist Google into translating search results > and web pages. Google Translate happened, more out of Google Community > participation than by the users demanding Translation as a matter of right. > > The Internet has worked, is working and will work - on its own. *The > Internet is not machines or wires, it is people*. The Internet is 1.3 > billion people today, would be 6 billion people tomorrow. People create and > participate. That is the magic of Internet. > > Internet relies on collaboration and on processes that are local, > bottom-up, open and accessible to individuals around the world. This model > clearly works and works well. > > Progress has happened, is happening and will happen on the Internet, not by > declaring rights or demanding enforcement of rights. The Internet > organizations largely grew up organically, and work together in a > collaborative manner, respecting each other's needs, roles and expertise. > They are not hierarchically organized, and all understand and respect the > interdependencies and inherent needs > > Progress and Innovation happens not by public, collective or individual > "demand" but by public, collective and individual participation in the > processes. > > The common vision is that of an open, accessible and global Internet. So > far it has been happening, not on demand, not by declaring and clamoring for > rights, b participation. The Internet - the people - participate, discuss > and cause everything desirable to happen. > > What worries me is this: Take a look at a title such as a "peace keeping > coalition force". What does it do? It goes to war. Think along these lines. > What would happen if you debate about rights and draw up a "Declaration of > Internet Rights"? You will end up creating rules. > > But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in > the trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights – > like right to livelihood or work, which he see as the right of everyone and > anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we would > gladly employ Milton J. > > I would argue for or against what Milton says, for or against what you or > Ian say, but wouldn't make it personal. Have you run out of arguments > against Milton? Is that the reason why you have picked up on him as a > person? ( not that I know Milton or fallen in Milton's "trap". It is very > imaginative to have thought of a Milton's trap ) > > Parminder > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:32 AM > > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > Meant to be addressed to: Hello Ian and All, (Milton's opinions are well > respected. But this message is technically isn't a reply to Milton) > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Milton, > > > > "right to have an Internet in ones own language" > > What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important > public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all > messages that everyone writes" or what if I say "I want all > intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a > Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any further"? And what > if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil > and all documents officially transcribed and published in Tamil? And in > Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in > Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, > in Kannada? > > There is so much to be DELETED in this draft. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement > Milton and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. > But that and many other issues here can wait till another day. > > > > The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the > submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but > perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together > – next week the ongoing debate can happily continue. > > > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > *Sent:* 09 September 2008 08:17 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a > collective right? > > > > No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different > from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal) > societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe > in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the > transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on > individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself. ;-) > > > > Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach > would certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned > corporations or even political communities) to own land, but see these as > extensions of individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the > property rights of a very different culture may not be recognizable to a > modern legal regime, and vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those > situations as a kind of special sovereignty. However, a collectivist > approach to property rights can just as easily work against indigenous > minorities as for them. I am sure you know the history. > > > > But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing > opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a > statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective > rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make > rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed) > > > > That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line > about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other > rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that > it may be a bit too in-your-face. > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 8 08:19:24 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:19:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [Ip-health] ACTA-USTR & Commerce will hold Public Meeting-September 22] Message-ID: <48C5184C.A2E9C45F@ix.netcom.com> All, For your review and possible participation. Also I forwarded this as a matter of consideration regarding privacy as that is a "Rights" issue. I would kindly suggest that if you can attend do so. If not please submit written remarks or proposals to the Email address given below. Sorry it this interupted anyones train of thought, or otherwise... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Ip-health] ACTA-USTR & Commerce will hold Public Meeting-September 22 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:40:19 -0400 From: "Dolores Cullen" To: This is a multipart message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Federal Register: September 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 173)] [Notices] [Page 51860-51861] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05se08-80] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), together with key trading partners, is negotiating an Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with the objective of strengthening international cooperation, enforcement practices, and participants' legal frameworks to address counterfeiting and piracy. As part of this effort, USTR, together with the U.S. Department of Commerce, is organizing a public meeting to consult with interested parties on the initiative. The purposes of the meeting will be to inform stakeholders about ACTA and to receive comments from stakeholders about their views regarding this initiative. Interested parties should review the section on requirements for participation below. DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, September 22, 2008, 10 a.m.- 12 noon. ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The meeting will be held in the Main Auditorium. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel S. Bae, Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation, Office of the United States Trade Representative, at (202) 395-4510. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 23, 2007, USTR announced that the United States, along with a group of trading partners, would pursue negotiation of a new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to enhance international leadership in the fight against IPR counterfeiting and piracy. The United States and other interested parties intend to seek an agreement with provisions in three main areas: International cooperation, enforcement practices, and the legal framework for IPR enforcement. A principal goal of the ACTA is to establish, among governments committed to strong IPR protection, a common standard for IPR enforcement to combat global infringements of IPR particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy that addresses today's challenges, in terms of increasing international cooperation, strengthening the framework of practices that contribute to effective enforcement of IPRs, and strengthening relevant IPR enforcement measures themselves. A fact sheet providing further details on the ACTA can be found on the USTR Web site at: http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_ Sheets/2008/asset_upload_file760_15084.pdf Requirements for Participation: Prior registration is required. To register, please send all required information by Wednesday, September 17, 2008 to the following e-mail address: Amanda.Wilson at mail.doc.gov. Required information for U.S. Citizens: Full Name and Name of Organization (if appropriate). Required information for Non-U.S. Citizens: Full Name, Gender, Title, Name of Organization (if appropriate), Date of Birth, Place of Birth, Passport Number, Place of Residence, Place of Citizenship. All attendees must bring a government- licensed photo identification upon arrival. Due to limited space in the room, participation will be on a first- come, first-serve basis. The participation of more than one representative from an organization may also be conditioned on the total number of participants. Those unable to participate in the meeting and/or who wish to present their positions in writing may send their comments electronically no later than Wednesday, September 17, 2008, to the following e-mail address: ACTA at ustr.eop.gov. Requirements for Comments: Comments must be in English. No submissions will be accepted via postal service mail or facsimile. Documents should be submitted as either WordPerfect, MS Word, Adobe, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets is acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel files. A submitter requesting that information contained in a comment be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. A non-confidential version of the comment must also be provided. For any document containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters ``BC-'', and the file name of the public version should begin with the character ``P-''. The ``P-'' or ``BC-'' should be followed by the name of the submitter. Submissions should not include separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. To the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the [[Page 51861]] same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Public Inspection of Submissions: Within one business day of receipt, non-confidential submissions will be placed in a public file, open for inspection at the USTR reading room, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Annex Building, 1724 F Street, NW., Room 1, Washington, DC. An appointment to review the file must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance and may be made by calling Jacqueline Caldwell at (202) 395-6186. The USTR reading room is open to the public from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Rachel S. Bae, Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation. [FR Doc. E8-20572 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am] -- _______________________________________________ Ip-health mailing list Ip-health at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 9 07:23:02 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:53:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement for open consultation Message-ID: <20080909112311.2C3D7E1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All A few of IGC members will be at the open consultation of MAG on the 16th. Those who will attend may want to let the group know. We can also plan to meet at lunch on the 16th to discuss various issues. Open consultations are occasions for spoken interventions, and we have almost always made one or more on the behalf of the IGC. We have a written contribution submitted last month as an input to the synthesis paper for this consultation. (http://igf.wgig.org/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGC%27s%20input%20for%20IGF%27s %20Sept%20consultations.pdf ). This statement can for the basis of the spoken intervention. I understand that apart from the program of Hyderabad IGF, which will be main agenda (pl see http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf ) , two other agenda items for the consultations are of reviewing the role of dynamic coalitions and their relationship with the IGF, and the process of review of the IGF. 1. IGF Hyderabad program - We mentioned in the written intervention that the process of organizing main workshops should be clarified. We can re-state this point. The nature of debate sessions is not clear at all. We should ask for clarity about what these sessions will look like, and who will organize them. One IGC member has suggested to me that we should ask MAG to invite written questions and comments for the debates session, and these questions should inform the debate. 2. Dynamic coalition - Please let me know what kind of issues IGC members want raised in this context. 3. IGF review - Our above referred statement mentions a few points regarding the IGF review. Some other points are there in the proposed input for the synthesis paper. If this input is adopted by the IGC, we can use some of these points. Any other points? A member has suggested to me that we make the point that MAG renewal should happen in time every year, for MAG to be able to do its work properly, and for new MAG members to make travel arrangement. Travel support should also be provided to CS MAG members, and the criteria of it made known. The member also suggested that special advisors to the MAG Chair should be rotated and more representation given to civil society. If any member can volunteer to pull together a draft statement out of these and/ or other points that may get contributed, it will be greatly appreciated. We have till 13th to finalize the draft before putting it to consensus process. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 9 07:26:44 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:56:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement for open consultation In-Reply-To: <20080909112311.2C3D7E1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080909112654.284AEE1F42@smtp3.electricembers.net> We may also like to express support for the IGF hubs initiative, a write up on which is enclosed. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC statement for open consultation Hi All A few of IGC members will be at the open consultation of MAG on the 16th. Those who will attend may want to let the group know. We can also plan to meet at lunch on the 16th to discuss various issues. Open consultations are occasions for spoken interventions, and we have almost always made one or more on the behalf of the IGC. We have a written contribution submitted last month as an input to the synthesis paper for this consultation. (http://igf.wgig.org/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGC%27s%20input%20for%20IGF%27s %20Sept%20consultations.pdf ). This statement can for the basis of the spoken intervention. I understand that apart from the program of Hyderabad IGF, which will be main agenda (pl see http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf ) , two other agenda items for the consultations are of reviewing the role of dynamic coalitions and their relationship with the IGF, and the process of review of the IGF. 1. IGF Hyderabad program - We mentioned in the written intervention that the process of organizing main workshops should be clarified. We can re-state this point. The nature of debate sessions is not clear at all. We should ask for clarity about what these sessions will look like, and who will organize them. One IGC member has suggested to me that we should ask MAG to invite written questions and comments for the debates session, and these questions should inform the debate. 2. Dynamic coalition - Please let me know what kind of issues IGC members want raised in this context. 3. IGF review - Our above referred statement mentions a few points regarding the IGF review. Some other points are there in the proposed input for the synthesis paper. If this input is adopted by the IGC, we can use some of these points. Any other points? A member has suggested to me that we make the point that MAG renewal should happen in time every year, for MAG to be able to do its work properly, and for new MAG members to make travel arrangement. Travel support should also be provided to CS MAG members, and the criteria of it made known. The member also suggested that special advisors to the MAG Chair should be rotated and more representation given to civil society. If any member can volunteer to pull together a draft statement out of these and/ or other points that may get contributed, it will be greatly appreciated. We have till 13th to finalize the draft before putting it to consensus process. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF_Hubs_Proposal[1].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 25259 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 9 10:37:12 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:37:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080909055135.4DFCCA6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080908171102.GA6075@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <20080909055135.4DFCCA6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E754@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive and > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > difference/ it is not a satisfactory solution. The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we need a different conception that pushes states into a more active guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we consider rights." I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. --MM > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the indivisibility of > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, including of > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and > fundamental freedoms...' > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful in > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', which > may > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression - > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas because if > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward towards > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to underpin > IGF's deliberations. > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important in > this > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full range of > IGF's work and discussions. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a > right > > as > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning > specific > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural > > rights, > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able > to > > say > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > collective. > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these > > rights, > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. > That > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that > may > > be > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and > > need > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > position. > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 9 11:08:47 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:08:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E754@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080908171102.GA6075@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <20080909055135.4DFCCA6C51@smtp2.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E754@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > and >> collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical >> difference/ > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > consider rights." > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. +1 -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Tue Sep 9 11:37:48 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:37:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080908163232.C0D4CE1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080908163232.C0D4CE1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, What you might call "women's rights", I call "human rights". Women do no have special rights because of the nature of their sex. Women have rights because they are individuals. Minorities do not have special rights because they are in the minority, minorities have rights because they are individuals. Etc. The concept of equality among all individuals comes into play here. Women, minorities, and others who are disadvantaged in one way or another should be treated as equals to the privileged. As soon as we start dividing ourselves up into groups and assigned with special rights according to our group, we turn equality on its head. That is why, for me, what we must give primacy to is the defense of individual rights -- and collective rights present a threat to fundamental individual rights (regardless of how well-meaning the proponents are). Robin On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Parminder wrote: > Robin, > > > > ‘Collective rights’ is obviously an analytical category and not a > right as such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly > meaning specific rights like rights of indigenous people, > linguistic rights, cultural rights, minority rights, right to > development etc. > > > > To say that one doesn’t believe in collective rights one must be > able to say that one doesn’t believe in the above rights. That’s a > simple and direct derivation. Are you saying so? > > > > One cannot say, no, I ‘do’ believe in all or some of the rights > listed above but not in collective rights as a category. > > > > Negative, positive and collective rights are categories of > representation and analysis, and in fact help to underscore that > different sets of rights may need different justifications and > analysis (something which Tapani asked to be clarified). > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > these rights, and not mention the terms negative, positive and > collective rights. That merely would mean one thinks all these > rights, along with those that may be considered negative and > positive rights are in the same category, and need not be > differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position. > > > > I quote what the IGC statement of July 19, 2005 to the WSIS process > said about rights. > > > > “Among priority public policy issues are….”….. Addressing human > rights as a cross-cutting principle in relation to evolution and > use of the Internet. Nothing in Internet governance negotiations > must impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights.” > > > > Most of the rights I mention above are universally agreed human > rights. Many positive rights and collective rights are certainly > among what would constitute as the category of universally agreed > human rights as meant in the above statement. > > > > So while IGC at one time insisted that ‘Nothing in Internet > governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict > universally agreed human rights’, and now if it issues a statement > that ‘impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human > rights’ I for one, as an IGC member, would certainly not want to be > a party to it. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:38 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > I haven't been able to keep up on this discussion as I would have > liked to, but I wanted to weigh in (hopefully not too late and off > topic). > > > > I also have deep concerns about promoting "collective" rights > because I see them as subordinating individual rights in > potentially dangerous ways (although no harm is intended). It is > the sovereign individual that is ultimately responsible. > Individuals acting together can be collectives, but it always > breaks down to the individual in the end. > > > > Robin > > > > On Sep 5, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I > have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of > engagement and deliberation is very useful. > > > > Agreed. > > > > It is important to recognize that there are two important and > different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a > category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. > My personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC > membership that really contests the very validity of the category > of positive and collective rights. I invite members’ comments on > this statement. Accordingly, I don’t think an IGC statement should > go out casting doubts on the very validity of these categories of > rights. I would therefore want all corresponding parts of the > statement removed. > > > > But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And it > is not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion > more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this > would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a > "small minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is > contested, and if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out > of it and issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy of > your statement as an expression of IGC. > > > > The second contestation is about whether there are some already > accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the > Internet – right to access internet (positive right) and right to > cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a > collective right). I agree that there may not be enough consensus > in this group at present to assert these rights, and we may only > speak of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. > Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of ‘wanting to > explore’ with regard to these rights. > > > > I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think > it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. > > > > “The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to > privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive > and collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet – > for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of > cultural diversity.” > > > > This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are > significant participants in CS who contest the positive and > collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. > > > > “We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and > claim “rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict > or compete with each other. For example, a claim that there is a > “right to Internet access” may imply an obligation on states to > fund and provide such access, but it is likely that if states are > responsible for supplying internet access that there will also be > strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users > can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a > factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how > to apply legal categories. “ > > > > This para clearly makes out a strong case against ‘right to the > Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for > it. I would delete the whole para. > > > > So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access cannot > be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only > thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are > responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible." That > makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is. > > > > I however find the last two sentences – which I know you state in > terms of meaningfulness of universal access – very interesting in > terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR > paragraph in a separate email. > > > > The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to > universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of > issues, especially privacy and identity. > > I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose. > > “The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it > reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, > impart and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken > to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and > to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for > privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant > parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva > Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work has been > done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet > governance.” > > > If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as FoE > and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important > rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. > As argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights > agenda may at ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG > related policy discussions also lies in making the rights discourse > broader, > > > > This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle. > You start with the area where there is the most common ground. The > point about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have > already committed themselves to it, I think the line about > balancing security concerns with other rights is especially > important. Even on your own expansive terms, it would be wiser to > start with the traditional rights and then move gradually into how > far it can be taken. > > > > including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of people, > which go beyond these two rights. > > > > Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the > vast majority 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 > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > > Robin Gross, Executive Director > > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Sep 9 13:32:23 2008 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:32:23 +0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Let me also come in here. I am not sure if it is acceptable how I try to enter into this debate: I think it is not clear what the purpose of the draft is – at least it is not clear to me. Of course, in terms of intended procedures, I know. But... We seem to be caught in a philosophical debate – about individual or collective rights. A few days ago I read in a Japanese mailing list that people in the three very different communes of Ayabe, Shoubara, and Yukichou, in different regions of Japan, have organized and try to start legal action because of the poor Internet connection they have: while a lot of tasks of public administration are offred by the authorities online (often requiring broadband access to handle huge documents) – they are disadvantaged. Others are disadvanaged because educational programs offered to the public cannot be accessed reasonably (again: broaband access required) and as a result the people are educatinally deprived, compared to the majority of the citizens in the country etc. I do not have many more details – but I imagine that the people who feel excluded from what is offered to the society in general do not much argue if they claim individual or collective rights – they are just motivated to get over their deprivation, which many individuals felt, some individuals articulated, and finally a “collective” is trying to get their situation brought up to the general standard in their society, by legal action. The debate whether claims are always made in terms of “my individual right” even when they are made by a group of individuals who may or may not consider this as a group right, has no commonly shared answer – neither throughout history, nor in all possible localities. Do we have to get it philosophically clear, or do we want to point towards some directions which might be solved by some joint legal activities (different in diffeent situaios)? If we want to work towards both anyway – might it then be possible to avoid the unsolved philosophical basis? Norbert Klein Open Institute/Cambodia -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:00:24 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:30:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: Hello Norbert Klein and All, This is a case in point. Within the existing legal structure, a "collective" has opted for legal action. Good. But on the Internet, WITHOUT the legal framework, with no declared list of rights, flash this news in a few blog posts, post it in a few mailing lists, pick up a banner here and there and you will find whole communities from around the world plunging into affirmative action. May be even the Government of Japan would pay swifter attention, sooner than it takes the legal process to send a directive to set right the disparity That is the beauty of the Internet Model. We don't have to declare rights to open a door for the proponents of greater control to volunteer to concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce such rights that the Civil Society declares. Tell me who is going to concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce Rights before you begin discussing rights. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > Let me also come in here. I am not sure if it is acceptable how I try to > enter > into this debate: I think it is not clear what the purpose of the draft is > – > at least it is not clear to me. Of course, in terms of intended procedures, > I > know. But... > > We seem to be caught in a philosophical debate – about individual or > collective rights. > > A few days ago I read in a Japanese mailing list that people in the three > very > different communes of Ayabe, Shoubara, and Yukichou, in different regions > of > Japan, have organized and try to start legal action because of the poor > Internet connection they have: while a lot of tasks of public > administration > are offred by the authorities online (often requiring broadband access to > handle huge documents) – they are disadvantaged. Others are disadvanaged > because educational programs offered to the public cannot be accessed > reasonably (again: broaband access required) and as a result the people are > educatinally deprived, compared to the majority of the citizens in the > country etc. > > I do not have many more details – but I imagine that the people who feel > excluded from what is offered to the society in general do not much argue > if > they claim individual or collective rights – they are just motivated to get > over their deprivation, which many individuals felt, some individuals > articulated, and finally a "collective" is trying to get their situation > brought up to the general standard in their society, by legal action. > > The debate whether claims are always made in terms of "my individual right" > even when they are made by a group of individuals who may or may not > consider > this as a group right, has no commonly shared answer – neither throughout > history, nor in all possible localities. > > Do we have to get it philosophically clear, or do we want to point towards > some directions which might be solved by some joint legal activities > (different in diffeent situaios)? If we want to work towards both anyway – > might it then be possible to avoid the unsolved philosophical basis? > > > Norbert Klein > Open Institute/Cambodia > -- > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, > please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: > > http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) > http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 15:04:48 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:34:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: Hello Civil Society, Have you noticed this? *Tunis Agenda says in 35, the management of the Internet ... should involve all stakeholders, but assigns the importance of stakeholders to the convenience of governments: * 1. *Policy authority ... is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. * 2. *The private sector ... should continue to have, an important role ... * 3. *Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. * 4. *(role for intergovernmental organizations)* 5. *(role for international organizations)* If someone has to guarantee / arbitrate / enforce rights and law enforcement happens to be the "sovereign right of States" Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Norbert Klein and All, > > This is a case in point. Within the existing legal structure, a > "collective" has opted for legal action. Good. > > But on the Internet, WITHOUT the legal framework, with no declared list of > rights, flash this news in a few blog posts, post it in a few mailing > lists, pick up a banner here and there and you will find whole communities > from around the world plunging into affirmative action. May be even the > Government of Japan would pay swifter attention, sooner than it takes the > legal process to send a directive to set right the disparity > > That is the beauty of the Internet Model. We don't have to declare rights > to open a door for the proponents of greater control to volunteer to > concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce such rights that the Civil Society > declares. > > Tell me who is going to concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce Rights before > you begin discussing rights. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India > > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > >> Let me also come in here. I am not sure if it is acceptable how I try to >> enter >> into this debate: I think it is not clear what the purpose of the draft is >> – >> at least it is not clear to me. Of course, in terms of intended >> procedures, I >> know. But... >> >> We seem to be caught in a philosophical debate – about individual or >> collective rights. >> >> A few days ago I read in a Japanese mailing list that people in the three >> very >> different communes of Ayabe, Shoubara, and Yukichou, in different regions >> of >> Japan, have organized and try to start legal action because of the poor >> Internet connection they have: while a lot of tasks of public >> administration >> are offred by the authorities online (often requiring broadband access to >> handle huge documents) – they are disadvantaged. Others are disadvanaged >> because educational programs offered to the public cannot be accessed >> reasonably (again: broaband access required) and as a result the people >> are >> educatinally deprived, compared to the majority of the citizens in the >> country etc. >> >> I do not have many more details – but I imagine that the people who feel >> excluded from what is offered to the society in general do not much argue >> if >> they claim individual or collective rights – they are just motivated to >> get >> over their deprivation, which many individuals felt, some individuals >> articulated, and finally a "collective" is trying to get their situation >> brought up to the general standard in their society, by legal action. >> >> The debate whether claims are always made in terms of "my individual >> right" >> even when they are made by a group of individuals who may or may not >> consider >> this as a group right, has no commonly shared answer – neither throughout >> history, nor in all possible localities. >> >> Do we have to get it philosophically clear, or do we want to point towards >> some directions which might be solved by some joint legal activities >> (different in diffeent situaios)? If we want to work towards both anyway – >> might it then be possible to avoid the unsolved philosophical basis? >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> Open Institute/Cambodia >> -- >> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, >> please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: >> >> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) >> http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 16:07:21 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:37:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, If the Rights based approach has to be the theme, so be it. But I don't like Parminder's draft as a starting point. I like Barlow's draft instead. May be we can go over this, modify the tone to suit a diplomatic forum, but retaining the essence of this Declaration? * * *A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace * *by John Perry Barlow * *Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.* *We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.* *Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.* *You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.* *You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.* *Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.* *We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.* *We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.* *Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.* *Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.* *In the United States, you have .. created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.* *You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.* *In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.* *Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.* *These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts. * *We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.* *Davos, Switzerland * *February 8, 1996 * On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Civil Society, > > Have you noticed this? > > *Tunis Agenda says in 35, the management of the Internet ... should > involve all stakeholders, but assigns the importance of stakeholders to the > convenience of governments: > * > > 1. > > *Policy authority ... is the sovereign right of States. They have > rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public > policy issues. * > 2. > > *The private sector ... should continue to have, an important role ... > * > 3. > > *Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, > especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. > * > 4. > > *(role for intergovernmental organizations)* > 5. > > *(role for international organizations)* > > If someone has to guarantee / arbitrate / enforce rights and law > enforcement happens to be the "sovereign right of States" > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello Norbert Klein and All, >> >> This is a case in point. Within the existing legal structure, a >> "collective" has opted for legal action. Good. >> >> But on the Internet, WITHOUT the legal framework, with no declared list of >> rights, flash this news in a few blog posts, post it in a few mailing >> lists, pick up a banner here and there and you will find whole communities >> from around the world plunging into affirmative action. May be even the >> Government of Japan would pay swifter attention, sooner than it takes the >> legal process to send a directive to set right the disparity >> >> That is the beauty of the Internet Model. We don't have to declare rights >> to open a door for the proponents of greater control to volunteer to >> concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce such rights that the Civil Society >> declares. >> >> Tell me who is going to concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce Rights before >> you begin discussing rights. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> India >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> >>> Let me also come in here. I am not sure if it is acceptable how I try to >>> enter >>> into this debate: I think it is not clear what the purpose of the draft >>> is – >>> at least it is not clear to me. Of course, in terms of intended >>> procedures, I >>> know. But... >>> >>> We seem to be caught in a philosophical debate – about individual or >>> collective rights. >>> >>> A few days ago I read in a Japanese mailing list that people in the three >>> very >>> different communes of Ayabe, Shoubara, and Yukichou, in different regions >>> of >>> Japan, have organized and try to start legal action because of the poor >>> Internet connection they have: while a lot of tasks of public >>> administration >>> are offred by the authorities online (often requiring broadband access to >>> handle huge documents) – they are disadvantaged. Others are disadvanaged >>> because educational programs offered to the public cannot be accessed >>> reasonably (again: broaband access required) and as a result the people >>> are >>> educatinally deprived, compared to the majority of the citizens in the >>> country etc. >>> >>> I do not have many more details – but I imagine that the people who feel >>> excluded from what is offered to the society in general do not much argue >>> if >>> they claim individual or collective rights – they are just motivated to >>> get >>> over their deprivation, which many individuals felt, some individuals >>> articulated, and finally a "collective" is trying to get their situation >>> brought up to the general standard in their society, by legal action. >>> >>> The debate whether claims are always made in terms of "my individual >>> right" >>> even when they are made by a group of individuals who may or may not >>> consider >>> this as a group right, has no commonly shared answer – neither throughout >>> history, nor in all possible localities. >>> >>> Do we have to get it philosophically clear, or do we want to point >>> towards >>> some directions which might be solved by some joint legal activities >>> (different in diffeent situaios)? If we want to work towards both anyway >>> – >>> might it then be possible to avoid the unsolved philosophical basis? >>> >>> >>> Norbert Klein >>> Open Institute/Cambodia >>> -- >>> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, >>> please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: >>> >>> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) >>> http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy >> > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 16:12:46 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 23:12:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Parminder, > > If the Rights based approach has to be the theme, so be it. But I don't like > Parminder's draft as a starting point. I like Barlow's draft instead. > > May be we can go over this, modify the tone to suit a diplomatic forum, but > retaining the essence of this Declaration? Works for me! -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 16:25:16 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:55:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: Mc Tim, On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:42 AM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: > > Hello Parminder, > > > > If the Rights based approach has to be the theme, so be it. But I don't > like > > Parminder's draft as a starting point. I like Barlow's draft instead. > > > > May be we can go over this, modify the tone to suit a diplomatic forum, > but > > retaining the essence of this Declaration? > > Works for me! Thanks. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Tue Sep 9 16:34:45 2008 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:34:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20080909223445.93822sdph871711c@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> Dear Siva, You are reaching the score of Jeffrey in terms of the number of emails per day. Please refrain because it is becoming impossible to follow that flow, unless being totally devoted to that involvment. Civil society member is supposed to be non government officer, private society employee.. with a salary for following this kiçnd of exchange. Many thanks, Jacques -- Jacques Berleur Universirty of Namur 61, rue de Bruxelles B - 5000 NAMUR URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl Sivasubramanian Muthusamy a écrit : > Mc Tim, > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:42 AM, McTim wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> wrote: >> > Hello Parminder, >> > >> > If the Rights based approach has to be the theme, so be it. But I don't >> like >> > Parminder's draft as a starting point. I like Barlow's draft instead. >> > >> > May be we can go over this, modify the tone to suit a diplomatic forum, >> but >> > retaining the essence of this Declaration? >> >> Works for me! > > > Thanks. > >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> mctim.blogspot.com >> > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 8 20:39:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:39:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080908163232.C0D4CE1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48C5C5A4.2C5443B6@ix.netcom.com> Robin and all, Nicely articulated! And agreed here. Robin Gross wrote: > Parminder, What you might call "women's rights", I call "human > rights". Women do no have special rights because of the nature of > their sex. Women have rights because they are individuals. Minorities > do not have special rights because they are in the minority, > minorities have rights because they are individuals. Etc.. The > concept of equality among all individuals comes into play here. > Women, minorities, and others who are disadvantaged in one way or > another should be treated as equals to the privileged. As soon as we > start dividing ourselves up into groups and assigned with special > rights according to our group, we turn equality on its head. That is > why, for me, what we must give primacy to is the defense of individual > rights -- and collective rights present a threat to fundamental > individual rights (regardless of how well-meaning the proponents > are). Robin On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> Robin, >> >> �Collective rights� is obviously an analytical category and not a >> right as such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly >> meaning specific rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic >> rights, cultural rights, minority rights, right to development etc. >> >> To say that one doesn�t believe in collective rights one must be >> able to say that one doesn�t believe in the above rights. That�s a >> simple and direct derivation. Are you saying so? >> >> One cannot say, no, I �do� believe in all or some of the rights >> listed above but not in collective rights as a category. >> >> Negative, positive and collective rights are categories of >> representation and analysis, and in fact help to underscore that >> different sets of rights may need different justifications and >> analysis (something which Tapani asked to be clarified). >> >> In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these >> rights, and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective >> rights. That merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along >> with those that may be considered negative and positive rights are >> in the same category, and need not be differentiated. I could in >> fact be happier with such a position. >> >> I quote what the IGC statement of July 19, 2005 to the WSIS process >> said about rights. >> >> �Among priority public policy issues are�.��.. Addressing human >> rights as a cross-cutting principle in relation to evolution and use >> of the Internet. Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must >> impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights.� >> >> Most of the rights I mention above are universally agreed human >> rights. Many positive rights and collective rights are certainly >> among what would constitute as the category of universally agreed >> human rights as meant in the above statement. >> >> So while IGC at one time insisted that �Nothing in Internet >> governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict >> universally agreed human rights�, and now if it issues a statement >> that �impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human >> rights� I for one, as an IGC member, would certainly not want to be >> a party to it. >> >> Parminder >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >> >> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:38 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller >> Cc: Parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper >> I haven't been able to keep up on this discussion as I would have >> liked to, but I wanted to weigh in (hopefully not too late and off >> topic). >> I also have deep concerns about promoting "collective" rights >> because I see them as subordinating individual rights in potentially >> dangerous ways (although no harm is intended). It is the sovereign >> individual that is ultimately responsible. Individuals acting >> together can be collectives, but it always breaks down to the >> individual in the end. >> Robin >> On Sep 5, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would >> expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this >> process of engagement and deliberation is very useful. >> Agreed. >> >> It is important to recognize that there are two important >> and different contestations here. One, whether there is at >> all a category of positive and collective rights in any >> case whatsoever. My personal view is that it is a very >> small minority among the IGC membership that really >> contests the very validity of the category of positive and >> collective rights. I invite members� comments on this >> statement. Accordingly, I don�t think an IGC statement >> should go out casting doubts on the very validity of these >> categories of rights. I would therefore want all >> corresponding parts of the statement removed. >> But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. >> And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up >> this discussion more or less from my point of view. Based >> on the list dialogue this would look like almost a 50-50 >> division, but whether this is a "small minority" or a >> significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and >> if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it >> and issue a separate statement contesting the legitimacy >> of your statement as an expression of IGC. >> The second contestation is about whether there are some >> already accepted extensions of positive and collective >> rights to the Internet � right to access internet >> (positive right) and right to cultural expression or an >> Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I >> agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group >> at present to assert these rights, and we may only speak >> of exploring them, and debating the pros and cons. >> Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of �wanting >> to explore� with regard to these rights. >> I did not delete that language, in regard to >> RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to >> "explore" contested issues. >> >> �The openness and diversity of the internet are >> underpinned by widely recognized (but still imperfectly >> enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to >> freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be >> useful to explore if and whether positive and collective >> rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet � for >> instance a right to Internet access, or a right of >> cultural expression - including the right to have an >> Internet in ones own language, which can inform the >> important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.� >> This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there >> are significant participants in CS who contest the >> positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it. >> >> �We recognize that while it is relatively easy to >> articulate and claim �rights� it is much more difficult to >> implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights >> claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. >> For example, a claim that there is a �right to Internet >> access� may imply an obligation on states to fund and >> provide such access, but it is likely that if states are >> responsible for supplying internet access that there will >> also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over >> what content users can access using public funds and >> facilities. There can also be uncertainty about the >> proper application of a rights claim to a factual >> situation. The change in the technical methods of >> communication often undermines pre-existing understandings >> of how to apply legal categories. � >> >> This para clearly makes out a strong case against �right >> to the Internet� and is obviously not acceptable to those >> who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. >> So people who believe in a positive right to Internet >> access cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can >> be? I think the only thing you need to do is replace "it >> is likely that if states are responsible" with "some fear >> that if states are responsible." That makes it clear that >> there is disagreement. which there is. >> >> I however find the last two sentences � which I know you >> state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access � >> very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I >> discuss my issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate >> email. >> The last two sentences were meant to be general, not >> specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle >> applies to all kinds of issues, especially privacy and >> identity. >> >> I also have problem with the new opening para that you >> propose.. >> >> �The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it >> reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, >> receive, impart and use information" and affirmed that >> "measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and >> security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must >> protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom >> of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva >> Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work >> has been done to enact these commitments to basic human >> rights in Internet governance.� >> >> If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default >> read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and >> very important rights, our effort is to explore the rights >> terrain much further. As argued in my earlier email the >> possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant time be >> globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy >> discussions also lies in making the rights discourse >> broader, >> This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of >> principle. You start with the area where there is the most >> common ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is >> that governments have already committed themselves to it, >> I think the line about balancing security concerns with >> other rights is especially important. Even on your own >> expansive terms, it would be wiser to start with the >> traditional rights and then move gradually into how far it >> can be taken. >> including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of >> people, which go beyond these two rights. >> Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak >> for the vast majority 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 >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists..cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > IP JUSTICERobin Gross, Executive Director1192 Haight Street, San > Francisco, CA 94117 USAp: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451w: > http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 8 21:01:19 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:01:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> <20080909223445.93822sdph871711c@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: <48C5CADF.F8CF28E2@ix.netcom.com> Jacques and all, What does this say for the right of freedom of expression? Just a thought... I can only guess it says that freedom of expression is limited to what Jacques can follow successfully or coherently. I can also only guess that Jacques is a high ranking official of a sovereign state. So lets all try not overwhelm poor Jacques... You know Jacques, what would also help your condition, and others irritation is if you would be so kind and considerate to trim your CC's, so list members don't get multiple copies of the same post, and would be a very *green* thing to do as less bandwidth would be used and waste in the additional electricity could be therefore conserved. I trimmed then this time for you in my response as a common courtesy to my fellow participants. I hope with all due candor, that you can also oblige accordingly in your next post. Thanks in advance for you kind future cooperation in the near future. >:) Jacques Berleur wrote: > Dear Siva, > You are reaching the score of Jeffrey in terms of the number of emails > per day. > Please refrain because it is becoming impossible to follow that flow, > unless being totally devoted to that involvment. Civil society member > is supposed to be non government officer, private society employee.. > with a salary for following this kiçnd of exchange. > Many thanks, > Jacques > -- > Jacques Berleur > Universirty of Namur > 61, rue de Bruxelles > B - 5000 NAMUR > URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy a écrit : > > > Mc Tim, > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:42 AM, McTim wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> wrote: > >> > Hello Parminder, > >> > > >> > If the Rights based approach has to be the theme, so be it. But I don't > >> like > >> > Parminder's draft as a starting point. I like Barlow's draft instead. > >> > > >> > May be we can go over this, modify the tone to suit a diplomatic forum, > >> but > >> > retaining the essence of this Declaration? > >> > >> Works for me! > > > > > > Thanks. > > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> mctim.blogspot.com > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 9 21:03:13 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Nom Com committee confirmations Message-ID: <675227.97558.qm@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, As you're aware Gao Mosweu, Solomon Gizaw, Jeremy Malcolm, Jeffrey Williams and Thomas Lowenhaupt were all selected to be part of the Nom Com. All apart from Jeffrey Williams have responded to my request for confirmation they both want to serve with confirmation they are actual people. I gave Jeffrey Williams till 09.00 Sydney time today (over 48 hours) and two emails giving him ample opportunity to respond. He has contributed to the Governance list within this period. So given Jeffrey Williams was unable to respond with confirmation of both his willingness to participate and with verification of who he is, his spot is now taken by Anriette Esterhuysen. I will be contacting Anriette to confirm her willingness to participate shortly. Regards, David --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 9 23:56:57 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:26:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E754@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20080910035738.64D82E1DBD@smtp3.electricembers.net> > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > and > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > difference/ > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the statement. The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and collective rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is that are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those who also support positive and collective rights - without some level of basic agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and obvious. I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can say that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, and many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any clear reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree on what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there being differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also positive and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > consider rights." As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' . Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority rights, linguistic rights.... ??? Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > and > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > difference/ > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > consider rights." > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > --MM > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > indivisibility of > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > including of > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights > and > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > be > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > in > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > which > > may > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression > - > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > can > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > because if > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward towards > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > underpin > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important > in > > this > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full range > of > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a > > right > > > as > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning > > specific > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > cultural > > > rights, > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be > able > > to > > > say > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > collective. > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > these > > > rights, > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > rights. > > That > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those > that > > may > > > be > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, > and > > > need > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > position. > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > -- > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Sep 10 00:15:18 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:15:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: References: <20080909073005.D234AA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <200809100032.23980.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: <3A688BC8-87A1-41CA-A106-CA6EDF057995@Malcolm.id.au> On 10/09/2008, at 4:07 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Parminder, > > If the Rights based approach has to be the theme, so be it. But I > don't like Parminder's draft as a starting point. I like Barlow's > draft instead. > > May be we can go over this, modify the tone to suit a diplomatic > forum, but retaining the essence of this Declaration? Even Barlow no longer holds to this dated aspirational document; see http://www.india-today.com/btoday/20001206/interview.html . The landscape of Internet governance has changed immensely since then. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 10 13:14:50 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:44:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080910035738.64D82E1DBD@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080910171502.B952469477@smtp1.electricembers.net> Today is the 10th, and we should have closed discussion on the proposed IGC inputs to the IGF synthesis paper and put the document for consensus process. However, some issues may still be open. I think Ian should take the call on what proposed inputs, if any will be put for the consensus process. Even if we close discussion by tomorrow evening, and a final set of proposed inputs are put up tomorrow and a 48 hours period given for endorsement or rejection, we will have our statement ready on 13th night. We can write to the IGF about a day's delay, and I hope they will condone it since it is in any case a weekend. Therefore, pl try to close your comments to the proposed statements by tomorrow. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 10 13:17:20 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:47:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080910035738.64D82E1DBD@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > statement. As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC member, and not a co-coordinator. As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - Different people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted that different people have different interpretations about rights, which makes a discussion on various rights important." (ends) Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the draft does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents of these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over-arching theme of IGF-4. Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the above text. Parminder PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must observe that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes against 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine of indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather their conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right for us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights." I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > and > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > difference/ > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > statement. > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > collective > rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is > that > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those > who > also support positive and collective rights - without some level of basic > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and > obvious. > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can say > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, and > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any clear > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree > on > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there > being > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also positive > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > consider rights." > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' . > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > and > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > difference/ > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > consider rights." > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > --MM > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > indivisibility of > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > including of > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights > > and > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > > be > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > > in > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > > which > > > may > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression > > - > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > > can > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > > because if > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward towards > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > > underpin > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important > > in > > > this > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full range > > of > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a > > > right > > > > as > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning > > > specific > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > > cultural > > > > rights, > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be > > able > > > to > > > > say > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > > collective. > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > > these > > > > rights, > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > > rights. > > > That > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those > > that > > > may > > > > be > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, > > and > > > > need > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > > position. > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 10 13:23:45 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:53:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Input on 'review of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20080907095505.ECABAA6C5F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080910172358.82503E1D67@smtp3.electricembers.net> We also only have 24 hours to close discussions on the proposed input on the issue of 'review of the IGF'. I think this may be less controversial, but who knows :-) . Ian, please make the judgment if you want to put this document also up for consensus process after about 24 hours from now. Thanks. Parminder GC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape [1]. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 14:36:52 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:06:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20080910035738.64D82E1DBD@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hello All, I have included the following preamble to the Input Synthesis paper to place our proposals in context. The preamble is drafted in such a way that it could eventually be further worked upon to come up with a declaration of rights: The Internet Governance Caucus affirms faith in the Charter of the United Nations as an organization based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. It recognizes the sovereignty of Nations to over affairs within each Nations territorial or geographical area or limit and upholds the principles of law as enshrined in the constitution of Nations, The Caucus emphasizes that the Internet is a user-centric non-geographical universal zone that transcends national boundries and even beyond planet earth's spherical boundaries in terms of infrastructure installations. The Caucus invites all stakeholders to the Internet, namely the International Organizations, National Governments and the Civil Society to examine the "rights based approach" as the overwhelming theme of the Internet Governance Forum at Cairo in the context of Internet's evolution as a community infrastructure that transcends all boundaries, and its user-centric and other characteristics that have caused to make the Internet what it is: 1. The internet is for participation by everyone. The Internet is accessible worldwide. The Internet transcends the boundaries of nations 2. The Internet has evolved as a medium neutral of technology, nationhood, language, religion or race. The internet is evolving and functions on a community model. The people who designed the internet had a very good sense of what they were doing-what kind of space they were creating and what its characteristics would be. 3. Different nations across the globe have differing concepts of freedom. Despite occasional attempts at restraint, the Internet has emerged as a medium for freedom of speech even in geographical regions where freedom of expression is restrained. The Internet is a medium to connect people across national boundaries and this is possible only as a free and unregulated medium. 4. The Internet Standards have emerged by open collaboration and participation from across national boundaries. Internet is continuously evolving and the Internet Community acknowledges the existence of problems related to security and commits to work on architectural and protocol based solutions. 5. The Internet provides space for everyone to have an identity, to store and exchange information. The identities on the Internet are transnationally distributed. 6. The Internet brings together people from around the world and has been considerably free of politics. Intenet is a space without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth 7. The internet is a global social space that works on community participation, "governed" by conventions, unwritten rules without a hierarchy of authrority. Internet has its own culture and ethos and is founded upon unwritten codes that provide an inherent order. A form of Internet Governance is to emerge out of commonwealth. 8. The Internet has the same relationship to the physical world that the mind does to the body 9. The legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context on the Internet are peculiar to the Internet and differs from that of the geographical world. 10. The Internet model differs from that of the Telecommunication or any other industry's business model. The Internet can not to be confined to the conventional legal definitions of an industry, or a "product" , and its own conventions are evolving for Governance. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > statement. > > As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC > member, and not a co-coordinator. > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - Different > people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the > contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a > 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted that > different people have different interpretations about rights, which makes a > discussion on various rights important." (ends) > > Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the draft > does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes > conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents of > these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and > possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over-arching > theme of IGF-4. > > Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the above > text. > > Parminder > > PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must > observe > that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes > against > 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of > rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means > that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is > contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine of > indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather their > conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right for > us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. > > It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the > WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. > > "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or > contradict universally agreed human rights." > > I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will > impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > > and > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > difference/ > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > statement. > > > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > > collective > > rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is > > that > > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those > > who > > also support positive and collective rights - without some level of basic > > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and > > obvious. > > > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can say > > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, > and > > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any clear > > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree > > on > > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there > > being > > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also > positive > > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > consider rights." > > > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' > . > > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority > > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > > and > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > difference/ > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies > > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example > > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, > > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we > > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > consider rights." > > > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by > > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely > > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, > > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > > indivisibility of > > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > > including of > > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights > > > and > > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > > > be > > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > > > in > > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > > > which > > > > may > > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural > expression > > > - > > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > > > can > > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > > > because if > > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward > towards > > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > > > underpin > > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important > > > in > > > > this > > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full > range > > > of > > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a > > > > right > > > > > as > > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning > > > > specific > > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > > > cultural > > > > > rights, > > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > say > > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > > > collective. > > > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > > > these > > > > > rights, > > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > > > rights. > > > > That > > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those > > > that > > > > may > > > > > be > > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, > > > and > > > > > need > > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 10 15:33:20 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:33:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <755E87D6D4D24561990D7595EC1D0CF7@IAN> Parminder I'm happy to try to wrap this up 24 hours from now for consensus. WE must be close now. To assist this - Parminder (or someone following this), can you post to the list the latest version as you see it for both documents? Everyone else, can you suggest *specific* word changes, additions, or deletions to this text within this period. (with explanation if necessary) Square brackets might be an appropriate way to indicate text you are unhappy with. Can we leave the rest of this debate until after we have a consensus document? 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 11 September 2008 03:17 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > statement. > > As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC > member, and not a co-coordinator. > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - Different > people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the > contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a > 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted that > different people have different interpretations about rights, which makes > a > discussion on various rights important." (ends) > > Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the draft > does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes > conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents of > these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and > possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over- > arching > theme of IGF-4. > > Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the above > text. > > Parminder > > PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must > observe > that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes > against > 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of > rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means > that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is > contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine of > indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather their > conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right > for > us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. > > It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the > WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. > > "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or > contradict universally agreed human rights." > > I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will > impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > > and > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > difference/ > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > statement. > > > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > > collective > > rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is > > that > > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those > > who > > also support positive and collective rights - without some level of > basic > > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and > > obvious. > > > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can > say > > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, > and > > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any > clear > > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree > > on > > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there > > being > > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also > positive > > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > consider rights." > > > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' > . > > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority > > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > > and > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > difference/ > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division > applies > > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example > > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, > > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we > > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > consider rights." > > > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by > > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely > > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, > > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > > indivisibility of > > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > > including of > > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human > rights > > > and > > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > widely > > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > also > > > be > > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > > > in > > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > > > which > > > > may > > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural > expression > > > - > > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > > > can > > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > > > because if > > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward > towards > > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > > > underpin > > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important > > > in > > > > this > > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full > range > > > of > > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not > a > > > > right > > > > > as > > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning > > > > specific > > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > > > cultural > > > > > rights, > > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > say > > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > > > collective. > > > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term > indeed > > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of > them. > > > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > > > these > > > > > rights, > > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > > > rights. > > > > That > > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those > > > that > > > > may > > > > > be > > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same > category, > > > and > > > > > need > > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 10 16:09:50 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:09:50 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <340ECC9076C4487EB3DB18A4094B3578@IAN> Siva I would not include this for many reasons, but a few are below. Just too many inaccuracies. At this late stage I would leave this out but would be happy to debate at length later on if desired. Ian Peter _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2008 04:37 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper Hello All, I have included the following preamble to the Input Synthesis paper to place our proposals in context. The preamble is drafted in such a way that it could eventually be further worked upon to come up with a declaration of rights: 1. The Internet has evolved as a medium neutral of technology, nationhood, language, religion or race. The internet is evolving and functions on a community model. The people who designed the internet had a very good sense of what they were doing-what kind of space they were creating and what its characteristics would be. It is still not neutral in language even if it is getting there. The people who originally designed it were creating a timesharing system for super computers. No security layer, many other flaws when compared with ideal design. 2. Different nations across the globe have differing concepts of freedom. Despite occasional attempts at restraint, the Internet has emerged as a medium for freedom of speech even in geographical regions where freedom of expression is restrained. The Internet is a medium to connect people across national boundaries and this is possible only as a free and unregulated medium. Controversial 3. The Internet Standards have emerged by open collaboration and participation from across national boundaries. Internet is continuously evolving and the Internet Community acknowledges the existence of problems related to security and commits to work on architectural and protocol based solutions. Developing country participation has been minimal. 4. The internet is a global social space that works on community participation, "governed" by conventions, unwritten rules without a hierarchy of authrority. Internet has its own culture and ethos and is founded upon unwritten codes that provide an inherent order. A form of Internet Governance is to emerge out of commonwealth. Disagree with this analysis 5. The Internet has the same relationship to the physical world that the mind does to the body Disagree with this analysis 6. The Internet model differs from that of the Telecommunication or any other industry's business model. The Internet can not to be confined to the conventional legal definitions of an industry, or a "product" , and its own conventions are evolving for Governance. Disagree again. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Parminder wrote: > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > statement. As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC member, and not a co-coordinator. As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - Different people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted that different people have different interpretations about rights, which makes a discussion on various rights important." (ends) Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the draft does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents of these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over-arching theme of IGF-4. Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the above text. Parminder PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must observe that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes against 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine of indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather their conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right for us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights." I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > and > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > difference/ > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > statement. > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > collective > rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is > that > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those > who > also support positive and collective rights - without some level of basic > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and > obvious. > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can say > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, and > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any clear > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree > on > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there > being > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also positive > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > consider rights." > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' . > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > and > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > difference/ > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > consider rights." > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > --MM > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > indivisibility of > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > including of > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights > > and > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > > be > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > > in > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > > which > > > may > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression > > - > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > > can > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > > because if > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward towards > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > > underpin > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important > > in > > > this > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full range > > of > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a > > > right > > > > as > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning > > > specific > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > > cultural > > > > rights, > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be > > able > > > to > > > > say > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > > collective. > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them. > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > > these > > > > rights, > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > > rights. > > > That > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those > > that > > > may > > > > be > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, > > and > > > > need > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > > position. > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 10 16:10:59 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:10:59 +1000 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <755E87D6D4D24561990D7595EC1D0CF7@IAN> Message-ID: <8178338C438F4C4FB6060262D63AC794@IAN> On reflection and because of time contraints, I'll post versions now for final comments. Google Docs now closed. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 11 September 2008 05:33 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > Parminder I'm happy to try to wrap this up 24 hours from now for > consensus. > WE must be close now. To assist this - > > Parminder (or someone following this), can you post to the list the latest > version as you see it for both documents? > > Everyone else, can you suggest *specific* word changes, additions, or > deletions to this text within this period. (with explanation if necessary) > Square brackets might be an appropriate way to indicate text you are > unhappy > with. > > Can we leave the rest of this debate until after we have a consensus > document? > > > > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: 11 September 2008 03:17 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > > statement. > > > > As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC > > member, and not a co-coordinator. > > > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - > Different > > people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the > > contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a > > 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including > the > > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted that > > different people have different interpretations about rights, which > makes > > a > > discussion on various rights important." (ends) > > > > Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the > draft > > does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can > sometimes > > conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents > of > > these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and > > possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over- > > arching > > theme of IGF-4. > > > > Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the > above > > text. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must > > observe > > that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes > > against > > 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of > > rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means > > that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is > > contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine > of > > indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather > their > > conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right > > for > > us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. > > > > It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the > > WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. > > > > "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or > > contradict universally agreed human rights." > > > > I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will > > impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > > > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > positive > > > > and > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > > statement. > > > > > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > > > collective > > > rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is > > > that > > > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > > > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and > those > > > who > > > also support positive and collective rights - without some level of > > basic > > > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple > and > > > obvious. > > > > > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can > > say > > > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, > > and > > > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any > > clear > > > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant > agree > > > on > > > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there > > > being > > > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also > > positive > > > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > > > > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective > rights..' > > . > > > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority > > > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > positive > > > > and > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division > > applies > > > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for > example > > > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are > saying, > > > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, > we > > > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > > > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, > "those > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet > by > > > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > > > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see > absolutely > > > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > > > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF > IV, > > > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > > > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > > > indivisibility of > > > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > > > including of > > > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human > > rights > > > > and > > > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > > widely > > > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: > the > > > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > > also > > > > be > > > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be > meaningful > > > > in > > > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > > > > which > > > > > may > > > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural > > expression > > > > - > > > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, > which > > > > can > > > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > > > > because if > > > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward > > towards > > > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > > > > underpin > > > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also > important > > > > in > > > > > this > > > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full > > range > > > > of > > > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and > not > > a > > > > > right > > > > > > as > > > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly > meaning > > > > > specific > > > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > > > > cultural > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must > be > > > > able > > > > > to > > > > > > say > > > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > > > > collective. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term > > indeed > > > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights > individuals > > > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > > > > these > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > > > > rights. > > > > > That > > > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with > those > > > > that > > > > > may > > > > > > be > > > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same > > category, > > > > and > > > > > > need > > > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 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 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 10 16:13:24 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:13:24 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - Input on 'review of the IGF' Message-ID: <650DF8453B614D20A611BBC72F174F4B@IAN> This is the text which will be put up for consensus about 24 hours from now, Please indicate specific text changes suggested, deletions suggested etc on list now so we can wrap this up. GC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape[1] . IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. ________________________________ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 1:22 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 10 16:36:16 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:36:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for cairo Message-ID: <4C13AD6F4E364558AAF42CB543B28F68@IAN> Attached a final draft for comments for this paper. Please make specific suggestions for change or deletion on list in reply to this topic within 24 hours - Google Docs is now closed. I must confess to not following the detail of this debate, so I may have missed some points - and Google Docs was getting messy towards the end. So any omissions are unintentional and I ask that you suggest appropriate changes. 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and how concepts such as positive and collective rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable internet policies. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to governments or companies, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 10 17:07:29 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:07:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for cairo In-Reply-To: <4C13AD6F4E364558AAF42CB543B28F68@IAN> Message-ID: <81E7D6E03FEF44D8AAC063B623483472@IAN> The following suggestion was sent to me off list For your paper, it would be desirable to include a reference to the general principle that the right to access the Internet is not conditional on the use that may be made of it (c.f. electricity and water supply, telephone services ...), particularly not putative and non-proven IPR infringements. Any comments? 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 11 September 2008 06:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for > cairo > > Attached a final draft for comments for this paper. Please make specific > suggestions for change or deletion on list in reply to this topic within > 24 hours - Google Docs is now closed. > > I must confess to not following the detail of this debate, so I may have > missed some points - and Google Docs was getting messy towards the end. > So any omissions are unintentional and I ask that you suggest > appropriate changes. > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the > MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse > at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the > Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, > and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. > Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society > caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights > and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized > in internet governance discussions. > > > > The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how concepts such as positive and collective > rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, > respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural > diversity. > > > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where > information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. > Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in > fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these > rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area. > Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political > participation may have important new implications in the internet age, > including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable > internet policies. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the > right > false&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true# > sdfootnote3sym> to know and completely 'own' the products and services > they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user > behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and > often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights > users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a > primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The > IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which > underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right > to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also explore how > individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer > electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled > with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We > also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with > each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application > of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical > methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of > how to apply legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF > to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other > global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > > > > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality > as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly > central to many social and political institutions, an alternative > foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the > view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate > for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to governments or > companies, but rather rights provide a set of international standards > and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. > It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric > information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric > IG agenda and polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects > that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights > and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 19:53:04 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:53:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for cairo In-Reply-To: <4C13AD6F4E364558AAF42CB543B28F68@IAN> References: <4C13AD6F4E364558AAF42CB543B28F68@IAN> Message-ID: <701af9f70809101653q507848f7j8f27a6abe9600cfd@mail.gmail.com> There is something to note here, when the rights based discussion begins, stakeholders that are being mentioned in this document can express and contribute to the Internet if it continues to stay both Open and Accessible. Within the context of developing world stakeholders, Free and Open Source Software FOSS or Open Standards or Open ICT Ecosystems help evolve and sustain human rights and nurture that perception and practice and without these, corporations will continue to assert undue ownership and violate privacy. In the WSIS 2005 declaration and action lines as well as the Civil Society Seoul Declaration, the need for wide consensus in FOSS, Open Standards and Openness has been evident but if future pursuits and interventions from Civil Society lack this in their statements, we are continuing to be far from the freedom oriented nature of the Internet and giving in our rights to capitalist forces. I must assert here that the current nature of the services being deployed over the Internet by human beings or social entrepreneurs or entrepreneurs in general through the World Wide Web are mostly FOSS based. People are organizing themselves and promoting their causes through websites like Facebook.com which shows that Civil Society is trying to continue its struggle for rights through existing corporation offerings that are open in nature. I believe that until the benefits of FOSS, Open Standards and Open ICT Ecosystems are not recognized by us, civil society, we are not struggling to promote human rights because these three things bring freedom and rights to human beings over the Internet. Rights to the Internet should never be conditional, they should be open, freedom oriented and respected. FOSS, Open Standards and Open ICT Ecosystems ensure that Human Rights as well right to expression remain sustainable over the Internet otherwise the time isn't far when Patenting the Internet will start and no forum will be able to compete that..........or detest it........... Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Attached a final draft for comments for this paper. Please make specific > suggestions for change or deletion on list in reply to this topic within 24 > hours – Google Docs is now closed. > > I must confess to not following the detail of this debate, so I may have > missed some points – and Google Docs was getting messy towards the end. So > any omissions are unintentional and I ask that you suggest appropriate > changes. > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > > > The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how concepts such as positive and collective rights > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, respectively, > a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the > right to political participation may have important new implications in the > internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally > applicable internet policies. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and > completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological > measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming > increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional > concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. > It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also > recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each > other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to governments or > companies, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and > guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is > pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information > society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and > polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 20:20:57 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:20:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for cairo In-Reply-To: <4C13AD6F4E364558AAF42CB543B28F68@IAN> References: <4C13AD6F4E364558AAF42CB543B28F68@IAN> Message-ID: <701af9f70809101720p6d0ab9f9u87b0447f23ab725f@mail.gmail.com> IT should also be noted here that movements like Creative Commons, which is in fact a nonprofit civil society organization, www.creativecommons.org are providing various IPR opportunities through the concept of "Share, Remix, Reuse — Legally" and there is a need to extend Creative Commons localization efforts that are happening for various Jurisdictions around the world. For example a Minister of Australia recently http://creativecommons.org.au/node/189 shared: Following up the news that the National Innovation Review has recommended that Australian Government should be releasing material under Creative Commons licences - in a speech at the Committee for Melbourne yesterday, Senator Carr gave what sounds like a fairly strong endorsement of this recommendation, saying: "We are and will remain a net importer of knowledge, so it is in our interest to promote the freest possible flow of information domestically and globally. The arguments for stepping out first on open access are the same as the arguments for stepping out first on emissions trading – the more willing we are to show leadership on this, we more chance we have of persuading other countries to reciprocate. And if we want the rest of the world to act, we have to do our bit at home." You must read how far the Creative Commons is spreading out to at: http://creativecommons.org/international The is what I was stressing earlier, ignoring what exists to support Human Rights will only make the process much longer and more complex, recognizing that FOSS, Open Standards and Open ICT Ecosystems bring to the table protection of one's creative expression, opportunity to share their creations in such a way that they can share, remix and reuse content freely and continue to share the freedoms with other people and human beings, this is the true Spirit of the Openness of the Internet! Once this is recognized, the recognition of our Universal Commons (collective commons or creative commons from various Jurisdictions) or the Universal Human Rights acceptance will a major target to achieve and deliberate at the IGF activities. Best Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Attached a final draft for comments for this paper. Please make specific > suggestions for change or deletion on list in reply to this topic within 24 > hours – Google Docs is now closed. > > I must confess to not following the detail of this debate, so I may have > missed some points – and Google Docs was getting messy towards the end. So > any omissions are unintentional and I ask that you suggest appropriate > changes. > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > > > The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how concepts such as positive and collective rights > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, respectively, > a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and the > right to political participation may have important new implications in the > internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of globally > applicable internet policies. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and > completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological > measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming > increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional > concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. > It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We also > recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each > other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to governments or > companies, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and > guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is > pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information > society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and > polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 23:35:50 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:35:50 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for cairo In-Reply-To: <701af9f70809101720p6d0ab9f9u87b0447f23ab725f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Fouad, do you have specific words to recommend for inclusion or deletion 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: 11 September 2008 10:21 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for > cairo > > IT should also be noted here that movements like Creative Commons, > which is in fact a nonprofit civil society organization, > www.creativecommons.org are providing various IPR opportunities > through the concept of "Share, Remix, Reuse - Legally" and there is a > need to extend Creative Commons localization efforts that are > happening for various Jurisdictions around the world. > > For example a Minister of Australia recently > http://creativecommons.org.au/node/189 shared: > Following up the news that the National Innovation Review has > recommended that Australian Government should be releasing material > under Creative Commons licences - in a speech at the Committee for > Melbourne yesterday, Senator Carr gave what sounds like a fairly > strong endorsement of this recommendation, saying: "We are and will > remain a net importer of knowledge, so it is in our interest to > promote the freest possible flow of information domestically and > globally. The arguments for stepping out first on open access are the > same as the arguments for stepping out first on emissions trading - > the more willing we are to show leadership on this, we more chance we > have of persuading other countries to reciprocate. And if we want the > rest of the world to act, we have to do our bit at home." > > You must read how far the Creative Commons is spreading out to at: > http://creativecommons.org/international > > The is what I was stressing earlier, ignoring what exists to support > Human Rights will only make the process much longer and more complex, > recognizing that FOSS, Open Standards and Open ICT Ecosystems bring to > the table protection of one's creative expression, opportunity to > share their creations in such a way that they can share, remix and > reuse content freely and continue to share the freedoms with other > people and human beings, this is the true Spirit of the Openness of > the Internet! > > Once this is recognized, the recognition of our Universal Commons > (collective commons or creative commons from various Jurisdictions) or > the Universal Human Rights acceptance will a major target to achieve > and deliberate at the IGF activities. > > Best > Fouad Bajwa > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Attached a final draft for comments for this paper. Please make specific > > suggestions for change or deletion on list in reply to this topic within > 24 > > hours - Google Docs is now closed. > > > > I must confess to not following the detail of this debate, so I may have > > missed some points - and Google Docs was getting messy towards the end. > So > > any omissions are unintentional and I ask that you suggest appropriate > > changes. > > > > > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the > MAG > > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse > at > > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the > Internet' an > > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, > and > > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. > Within > > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > > internet governance discussions. > > > > > > > > The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how concepts such as positive and collective > rights > > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, > respectively, > > a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including > the > > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, > > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the > public > > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly > new > > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding > digital > > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the > IGF > > openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and > the > > right to political participation may have important new implications in > the > > internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of > globally > > applicable internet policies. > > > > > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers > > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know > and > > completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological > > measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are > becoming > > increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and > traditional > > concepts of what rights users have. > > > > > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability > > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread > political > > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. > In > > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio- > economic > > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues > surrounding > > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property > claims > > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital > space. > > It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, > and > > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > > copyrights. > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > > "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We > also > > recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each > > other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods > of > > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to > apply > > legal categories. > > > > > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF > to > > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global > forum > > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical > > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to > many > > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and > conceptual > > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to governments or > > companies, but rather rights provide a set of international standards > and > > guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It > is > > pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information > > society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda > and > > polices. > > > > > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > this > > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully > figure > > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > 1:22 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 11 00:01:16 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:31:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080911040134.21733E1CDE@smtp3.electricembers.net> In my email below I suggested the new language for the contested para as > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: > the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, > respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural > diversity. It may be noted that different people have different > interpretations about rights, which makes a discussion on various > rights important." (ends) This was inadvertent due to picking from the wrong version of the doc, because I have already agreed to replace 'positive and collective rights' with 'other kinds of rights'. This is because we found that we cant agree on the meaning of these terms. Accordingly the para should read "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', which may relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." Thanks. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:47 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > statement. > > As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC > member, and not a co-coordinator. > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - Different > people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the > contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a > 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including the > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted that > different people have different interpretations about rights, which makes > a > discussion on various rights important." (ends) > > Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the draft > does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes > conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents of > these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and > possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over- > arching > theme of IGF-4. > > Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the above > text. > > Parminder > > PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must > observe > that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes > against > 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of > rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means > that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is > contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine of > indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather their > conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right > for > us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. > > It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the > WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. > > "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or > contradict universally agreed human rights." > > I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will > impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > > and > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > difference/ > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > statement. > > > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > > collective > > rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is > > that > > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those > > who > > also support positive and collective rights - without some level of > basic > > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and > > obvious. > > > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can > say > > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, > and > > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any > clear > > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree > > on > > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there > > being > > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also > positive > > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > consider rights." > > > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' > . > > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority > > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive > > > and > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > difference/ > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division > applies > > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example > > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying, > > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we > > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > consider rights." > > > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by > > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely > > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV, > > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > > indivisibility of > > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > > including of > > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human > rights > > > and > > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > widely > > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > also > > > be > > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > > > in > > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > > > which > > > > may > > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural > expression > > > - > > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > > > can > > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > > > because if > > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward > towards > > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > > > underpin > > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important > > > in > > > > this > > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full > range > > > of > > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not > a > > > > right > > > > > as > > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning > > > > specific > > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > > > cultural > > > > > rights, > > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > say > > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > > > collective. > > > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term > indeed > > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of > them. > > > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals > > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > > > these > > > > > rights, > > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > > > rights. > > > > That > > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those > > > that > > > > may > > > > > be > > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same > category, > > > and > > > > > need > > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 00:29:49 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:29:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080911040134.21733E1CDE@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080911040134.21733E1CDE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Parminder wrote: > > Accordingly the para should read > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: [the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy]. It may also be useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet bracketed text above unneccessary IMO, plus it doesn't read well. I would snip the whole bit below as both controversial and not needed to mention specific rights: [; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', which may relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'."] -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 11 00:39:46 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:09:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080911043957.36A55E1F36@smtp3.electricembers.net> > bracketed text above unnecessary IMO, plus it doesn't read well. If it is only about reading well, we can try and make it read well. For grammar's sake we cant sacrifice substantive stuff. Specific rights - here, FoE and privacy - need to mentioned. The statement is too weak without that. What about. "The openness and diversity of the internet has a strong basis in and for widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy." > I would snip the whole bit below as both controversial and not needed > to mention specific rights: As stated often here, that would not be acceptable to me/ others. As said above without some kind of references of specific rights and rights debates the statement is too weak, and largely meaningless and ineffectual. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:00 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > Accordingly the para should read > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: [the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy]. It may also be > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful in > relation to the Internet > > bracketed text above unneccessary IMO, plus it doesn't read well. > > I would snip the whole bit below as both controversial and not needed > to mention specific rights: > > [; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', which may relate to the > IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression - including > the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform > the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'."] > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 01:49:42 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:19:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for cairo In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f70809101720p6d0ab9f9u87b0447f23ab725f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ian Peter, I have stumbled on the statement "Rights to the Internet should never be conditional" in Fouad Bajwa's message which if incorporated addresses all my concerns as well. This is the very idea that I tried to convey, first by pointing to the fact that rights as a theme for discussion would pave way for a discussion on measures to enforce rights - in other words, conditions to guarantee rights. When that did not sink in, I tried a reverse path to point out possible extreme positions, Great, rights is a great topic, collective rights is also a great idea, Let's work to get different broadband price plans for men and women, free movie downloads for people living in the mountains. I went on to point out possible extremes in language based demand, which would give a hint of religion based or region based demands. At the risk of being quoted out of context, or dubbed anti-establishment, I brought Barlow's draft as a fierce statement on rights, and then proposed a (draft) preamble to draw attention to the fundamental characteristics of the Internet (as first draft, to be commented and modified word for word, but there isn't time to do that as you have pointed out which I did accept). All that is out of concerns for the conditions that are implicit in any "approval" or even "adoption" of rights. 1. If we can include the statement "Rights to the Internet should never be conditional", may be the theme is better pronounced. There are implied obligations that go with any established right, which is Ok, and implied obligations differ in nature from overtly or subtly negotiated conditions. So we need to say "unconditional" prominently. Rights, in spirit, are non-negotiable. 2. I would prefer the term "Internet Rights" to "Rights" - 'Internet Rights' defined as "Right to Internet and Rights on the Internet". 3. The specific text that can also be included is this: "Internet is Open and Accessible and fosters Open Standards and Open Ecosystems. In this context the theme would also covers the right to the freest possible flow of information domestically and globally, the right to share one's creations, remix, reuse freely" Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India. On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Fouad, do you have specific words to recommend for inclusion or deletion > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > > Sent: 11 September 2008 10:21 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for > > cairo > > > > IT should also be noted here that movements like Creative Commons, > > which is in fact a nonprofit civil society organization, > > www.creativecommons.org are providing various IPR opportunities > > through the concept of "Share, Remix, Reuse - Legally" and there is a > > need to extend Creative Commons localization efforts that are > > happening for various Jurisdictions around the world. > > > > For example a Minister of Australia recently > > http://creativecommons.org.au/node/189 shared: > > Following up the news that the National Innovation Review has > > recommended that Australian Government should be releasing material > > under Creative Commons licences - in a speech at the Committee for > > Melbourne yesterday, Senator Carr gave what sounds like a fairly > > strong endorsement of this recommendation, saying: "We are and will > > remain a net importer of knowledge, so it is in our interest to > > promote the freest possible flow of information domestically and > > globally. The arguments for stepping out first on open access are the > > same as the arguments for stepping out first on emissions trading - > > the more willing we are to show leadership on this, we more chance we > > have of persuading other countries to reciprocate. And if we want the > > rest of the world to act, we have to do our bit at home." > > > > You must read how far the Creative Commons is spreading out to at: > > http://creativecommons.org/international > > > > The is what I was stressing earlier, ignoring what exists to support > > Human Rights will only make the process much longer and more complex, > > recognizing that FOSS, Open Standards and Open ICT Ecosystems bring to > > the table protection of one's creative expression, opportunity to > > share their creations in such a way that they can share, remix and > > reuse content freely and continue to share the freedoms with other > > people and human beings, this is the true Spirit of the Openness of > > the Internet! > > > > Once this is recognized, the recognition of our Universal Commons > > (collective commons or creative commons from various Jurisdictions) or > > the Universal Human Rights acceptance will a major target to achieve > > and deliberate at the IGF activities. > > > > Best > > Fouad Bajwa > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > > Attached a final draft for comments for this paper. Please make > specific > > > suggestions for change or deletion on list in reply to this topic > within > > 24 > > > hours - Google Docs is now closed. > > > > > > I must confess to not following the detail of this debate, so I may > have > > > missed some points - and Google Docs was getting messy towards the end. > > So > > > any omissions are unintentional and I ask that you suggest appropriate > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > > > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that > the > > > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > > > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > > > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the > > MAG > > > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse > > at > > > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the > > Internet' an > > > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > > > > > > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify > and > > > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > > > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, > > and > > > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. > > Within > > > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society > caucus, > > > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > > > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > > > internet governance discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > be > > > useful to explore if and how concepts such as positive and collective > > rights > > > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, > > respectively, > > > a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - > including > > the > > > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being > > > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > > information, > > > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the > > public > > > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly > > new > > > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > > > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding > > digital > > > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form > of > > > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in > the > > IGF > > > openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of association and > > the > > > right to political participation may have important new implications in > > the > > > internet age, including the right to participate in the shaping of > > globally > > > applicable internet policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > > > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > > > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > > > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings > to > > > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful > to > > > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > > > > > > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > > > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > > > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > > Consumers > > > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to > know > > and > > > completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological > > > measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are > > becoming > > > increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and > > traditional > > > concepts of what rights users have. > > > > > > > > > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > > applicability > > > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread > > political > > > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. > > In > > > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio- > > economic > > > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues > > surrounding > > > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property > > claims > > > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital > > space. > > > It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, > test, > > and > > > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > > > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > > > copyrights. > > > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > > > "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them. We > > also > > > recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with > each > > > other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > > > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical > methods > > of > > > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to > > apply > > > legal categories. > > > > > > > > > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF > > to > > > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global > > forum > > > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > > > > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > > technical > > > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a > giant > > > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to > > many > > > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and > > conceptual > > > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that > a > > > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to governments or > > > companies, but rather rights provide a set of international standards > > and > > > guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It > > is > > > pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric > information > > > society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda > > and > > > polices. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > > this > > > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops > on > > > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully > > figure > > > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > > > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > > > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 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 > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 10 04:55:22 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:55:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] Call for final comments - rights as a theme for cairo References: <701af9f70809101720p6d0ab9f9u87b0447f23ab725f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48C78B79.E65996E6@ix.netcom.com> Sivasubramanian, and all, After reading a number of your posts here, I have gained what I hope to be a healthy respect for your brand of sarcasm which I find both humorous, and very constructive. That said, I agree that there is much in these "rights as a theme" to be not reasonable. Language and culture to be the top two which will never be starters in any real sense, although laudable goals or works in progress. I also prefer a better theme, so I offer "The users bill of rights for the Internet". So I would strike all language regarding "Language", "Culture", and "Collective Rights". Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Ian Peter, > > I have stumbled on the statement "Rights to the Internet should never > be conditional" in Fouad Bajwa's message which if incorporated > addresses all my concerns as well. > > This is the very idea that I tried to convey, first by pointing to the > fact that rights as a theme for discussion would pave way for a > discussion on measures to enforce rights - in other words, conditions > to guarantee rights. When that did not sink in, I tried a reverse path > to point out possible extreme positions, Great, rights is a great > topic, collective rights is also a great idea, Let's work to get > different broadband price plans for men and women, free movie > downloads for people living in the mountains. I went on to point out > possible extremes in language based demand, which would give a hint of > religion based or region based demands. At the risk of being quoted > out of context, or dubbed anti-establishment, I brought Barlow's > draft as a fierce statement on rights, and then proposed a (draft) > preamble to draw attention to the fundamental characteristics of the > Internet (as first draft, to be commented and modified word for word, > but there isn't time to do that as you have pointed out which I did > accept). All that is out of concerns for the conditions that are > implicit in any "approval" or even "adoption" of rights. > > 1. If we can include the statement "Rights to the Internet should > never be conditional", may be the theme is better pronounced. There > are implied obligations that go with any established right, which is > Ok, and implied obligations differ in nature from overtly or subtly > negotiated conditions. So we need to say "unconditional" prominently. > Rights, in spirit, are non-negotiable. > > 2. I would prefer the term "Internet Rights" to "Rights" - 'Internet > Rights' defined as "Right to Internet and Rights on the Internet". > > 3. The specific text that can also be included is this: > > "Internet is Open and Accessible and fosters Open Standards and Open > Ecosystems. In this context the theme would also covers the right to > the freest possible flow of information domestically and globally, the > right to share one's creations, remix, reuse freely" > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India. > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > Fouad, do you have specific words to recommend for inclusion > or deletion > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > > Sent: 11 September 2008 10:21 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr..org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for final comments - rights > as a theme for > > cairo > > > > IT should also be noted here that movements like Creative > Commons, > > which is in fact a nonprofit civil society organization, > > www.creativecommons.org are providing various IPR > opportunities > > through the concept of "Share, Remix, Reuse - Legally" and > there is a > > need to extend Creative Commons localization efforts that > are > > happening for various Jurisdictions around the world. > > > > For example a Minister of Australia recently > > http://creativecommons.org.au/node/189 shared: > > Following up the news that the National Innovation Review > has > > recommended that Australian Government should be releasing > material > > under Creative Commons licences - in a speech at the > Committee for > > Melbourne yesterday, Senator Carr gave what sounds like a > fairly > > strong endorsement of this recommendation, saying: "We are > and will > > remain a net importer of knowledge, so it is in our > interest to > > promote the freest possible flow of information > domestically and > > globally. The arguments for stepping out first on open > access are the > > same as the arguments for stepping out first on emissions > trading - > > the more willing we are to show leadership on this, we > more chance we > > have of persuading other countries to reciprocate. And if > we want the > > rest of the world to act, we have to do our bit at home." > > > > You must read how far the Creative Commons is spreading > out to at: > > http://creativecommons.org/international > > > > The is what I was stressing earlier, ignoring what exists > to support > > Human Rights will only make the process much longer and > more complex, > > recognizing that FOSS, Open Standards and Open ICT > Ecosystems bring to > > the table protection of one's creative expression, > opportunity to > > share their creations in such a way that they can share, > remix and > > reuse content freely and continue to share the freedoms > with other > > people and human beings, this is the true Spirit of the > Openness of > > the Internet! > > > > Once this is recognized, the recognition of our Universal > Commons > > (collective commons or creative commons from various > Jurisdictions) or > > the Universal Human Rights acceptance will a major target > to achieve > > and deliberate at the IGF activities. > > > > Best > > Fouad Bajwa > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > > Attached a final draft for comments for this paper. > Please make specific > > > suggestions for change or deletion on list in reply to > this topic within > > 24 > > > hours - Google Docs is now closed. > > > > > > I must confess to not following the detail of this > debate, so I may have > > > missed some points - and Google Docs was getting messy > towards the end. > > So > > > any omissions are unintentional and I ask that you > suggest appropriate > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme for > IGF-4 in Egypt > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that > 'Rights and the > > > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in > Egypt, and that the > > > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a > rights-based > > > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus > has already > > > expressed support for the letter on this subject which > was sent to the > > MAG > > > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape > such a discourse > > at > > > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights > and the > > Internet' an > > > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the > internet > > > > > > > > > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should > be to clarify and > > > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to > the Internet are > > > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of > human rights, > > and > > > which ones need to be internationally recognized and > strengthened.. > > Within > > > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil > society caucus, > > > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various > rights and > > > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be > emphasized in > > > internet governance discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > The openness and diversity of the internet provide an > avenue for widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to > privacy. It may also be > > > useful to explore if and how concepts such as positive > and collective > > rights > > > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for > instance, > > respectively, > > > a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural > expression - including > > the > > > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > can inform the > > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many important internet policy areas, like network > neutrality, are being > > > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and > share > > information, > > > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the > > public > > > to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly > > new > > > manner in a digital environment, where information is > often publicly > > > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of > withholding > > digital > > > public information from citizens in fact can be looked > upon as a form of > > > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be > included in the > > IGF > > > openness theme area. Other rights such as the right of > association and > > the > > > right to political participation may have important new > implications in > > the > > > internet age, including the right to participate in the > shaping of > > globally > > > applicable internet policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social > and political > > > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at > the same time be > > > further widening economic, social and political divides. > It is for this > > > reason that development has been a central theme for the > IGF meetings to > > > date. In this new, more global and digital context it > might be useful to > > > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > > > > > > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and > governments are > > > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into > people's homes and > > > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and > citizens. > > Consumers > > > of digital products thus face new challenges including > the right to know > > and > > > completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. > Technological > > > measures to monitor and control user behavior on the > internet are > > becoming > > > increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public > policies and > > traditional > > > concepts of what rights users have. > > > > > > > > > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, > their > > applicability > > > and mutations in the digital environment have led to > widespread > > political > > > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. > > In > > > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary > area of socio- > > economic > > > conflict in the information society. The IGF can > explore issues > > surrounding > > > the public interest principles which underpin > intellectual property > > claims > > > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in > the digital > > space. > > > It can also explore how individuals' property right to > own, build, test, > > and > > > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of > equipment can be > > > reconciled with the regulation of technical > circumvention to protect > > > copyrights. > > > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to > articulate and claim > > > "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and > enforce them. We > > also > > > recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or > compete with each > > > other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper > application of a > > > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the > technical methods > > of > > > communication often undermines pre-existing > understandings of how to > > apply > > > legal categories. > > > > > > > > > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case > for using the IGF > > to > > > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is > no other global > > forum > > > where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > > > > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been > founded in > > technical > > > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's > functionality as a giant > > > global marketplace. With the internet becoming > increasingly central to > > many > > > social and political institutions, an alternative > foundation and > > conceptual > > > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the > IG Caucus that a > > > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening to > governments or > > > companies, but rather rights provide a set of > international standards > > and > > > guiding principles that can help to inform complex > policy decisions. It > > is > > > pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a > people-centric information > > > society, and a rights framework helps develop > people-centric IG agenda > > and > > > polices. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best > suited to take up > > this > > > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, > where workshops on > > > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully > > figure > > > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects > that these > > > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing > 'Rights and the > > > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in > Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release > Date: 8/9/2008 > > 1:22 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 > > > > > -- > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kettemann at gmx.at Thu Sep 11 05:26:30 2008 From: kettemann at gmx.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:26:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper [General comments, only!] In-Reply-To: <20080911043957.36A55E1F36@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080911043957.36A55E1F36@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48C8E446.7010404@gmx.at> Dear all, [please note that this posting does not suggest any substantive changes, but rather dicusses some general aspects of the debate and attempts to clarify what we perceive as misunderstandings of human rights law that emerged during the debate. If you're busy, you can save the message and reflect over it during the weekend.] while we cannot address all aspects of the discussion led on the list, we -- as international lawyers and human rights experts -- feel that the debate that has taken place over the last days (while leading to a statement that we feel mentions some highly relevant issues concerning human rights in the Internet) has not always served the purpose it purported to serve: clarifying our commitment to the protection of human rights on the Internet. Let us therefore draw your attention to the following general points, some of which have been taken up by Parminder in yesterday's message of 07:51 GMT+1. 1. The often acrimonious debates on the primacy of individual over collective rights and of first over second and third dimension/generation of human rights lead us nowhere. In fact, most serious human rights literature has discarded the notion of generation of rights as an ideological concept developed against the backdrop of the Cold War. It serves no purpose to attempt to renew these debates. Let us keep them buried. 2. Already the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is expressly mentioned by the Tunis Agenda, has integrated individual as well as (some) collective rights into his catalogue of rights. Further, in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993 the international community highlighted that "[a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated." (UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23 of 12 July 1993, para. 5). Any attempt to divide human rights into rights with more and rights with less significance runs contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Declaration and the UDHR. The states assembled in Vienna 15 years ago agreed that "[t]he international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis." The same is true for our community of scholars and practitioners interested in the role of -- all -- human rights on the Internet. 3. Rights without remedies exist. A right does not cease to exist if it is violated. Even if some rights, such as the right to education, can be realized only progressively, they have, nevertheless, real implications for governments. These include, e.g., the obligation to ensure effectively the enjoyment of -- at least -- the minimum content of the right, in a non-discriminatory fashion, and to progressively enhance the level of enjoyment. And of course: the right to work does not imply a right to a specific job, but rather a right to enter into the socio-economic activities necessary to live a dignified life. 4. Declaring a "right to the Internet" seems like a attractive, simple and inspiring concept, but a closer look reveals that the concept involves a number of different (and sometimes competing) human rights. Should it be a right to Internet access? A right to e-literacy? A right to content in one's own language. These are questions we need to clarify first -- and we need to clarify them urgently. Creating new rights does not bring us closer to ensuring respect for, and the protection of, human rights in Internet Governance. A serious, unapologetically honest debate, however, does. 5. A member of our list has suggested that "[w]omen do no have special rights because of the nature of their sex. Women have rights because they are individuals." This principle of equality as formally expressed in law, without differentiation between women and men, often implies hidden discrimination against women. Due to the different positions and roles that society constructs for women and men "de iure" equality often results in "de facto" discrimination. Therefore any discussion on the human rights of women presupposes an in-depth analysis of the concepts of difference, disadvantage and discrimination in the context of pluralizing societies and should be based on a substantive definition of equality that takes into account the societal definition of gender as contained in Article 7 of the Statute of the ICC and the groundbreaking work of the committee under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights celebrates its 60th anniversary on 10 December 2008, let us look beyond the ideological debates of the past and enter into a human rights dicourse that can provide answers to the challenges of the future: This necessitates a holistic concept of human rights. The language of our synthesis paper should reflect this commitment -- and the compromise language now seems to do so. Wolfgang and Matthias PS: Should you feel the need for a short introduction into the concept of human rights and its fundamental notions, feel free to consult, e.g., Wolfgang Benedek (ed.), Understanding Human Rights. Manual on Human Rights Education, 2nd edition, Berlin/Antwerp/Vienna: BWV/Intersentia/NWV, 2006. The book is also available online in 14 languages at http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=704. The English version can be found at http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=446 -- Professor Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz, Austria Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T +43 316 380 6711 (office) F +43 316 380 9455 (fax) E wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at E matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 11 05:44:47 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:44:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Disclosure(s) Message-ID: Hi, Yesterday I signed a contract with the UN and will join the IGF secretariat as consultant for 3 days next week. Looking forward to working with Avri, to supporting the MAG, the caucus and any other stakeholder who passes through! But does mean I won't comment on substantive issues and IGF/MAG procedural matters, at least not for a while. I will continue to provide information best I can. And. September 5, ICANN's Nominating Committee announced its selections . I will be joining the ALAC. Looking forward to working with all of you involved in ICANN. I hope those of you who working for organizations representing individual Internet users will consider becoming an "At-Large Structure" , the ICANN community needs you. Apologies for the interruption, good luck with input for the synthesis document. Best, 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 asif at kabani.co.uk Thu Sep 11 05:56:00 2008 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:56:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Disclosure(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8017791e0809110256p280ffd98w4807052abbd0c8b6@mail.gmail.com> Adam, Congratulation, 2008/9/11 Adam Peake > Hi, > > Yesterday I signed a contract with the UN and will join the IGF secretariat > as consultant for 3 days next week. Looking forward to working with Avri, > to supporting the MAG, the caucus and any other stakeholder who passes > through! > > But does mean I won't comment on substantive issues and IGF/MAG procedural > matters, at least not for a while. I will continue to provide information > best I can. > > And. September 5, ICANN's Nominating Committee announced its selections < > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05sep08-en.htm>. I > will be joining the ALAC. Looking forward to working with all of you > involved in ICANN. > > I hope those of you who working for organizations representing individual > Internet users will consider becoming an "At-Large Structure" < > http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23may05.htm>, > the ICANN community needs you. > > Apologies for the interruption, good luck with input for the synthesis > document. > > Best, > > 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 > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 05:58:10 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:28:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Disclosure(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Adam Peake, Congratulations on your assignment as a Consultant ( 3 years ?) your message says 3 days... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > Yesterday I signed a contract with the UN and will join the IGF secretariat > as consultant for 3 days next week. Looking forward to working with Avri, > to supporting the MAG, the caucus and any other stakeholder who passes > through! > > But does mean I won't comment on substantive issues and IGF/MAG procedural > matters, at least not for a while. I will continue to provide information > best I can. > > And. September 5, ICANN's Nominating Committee announced its selections < > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05sep08-en.htm>. I > will be joining the ALAC. Looking forward to working with all of you > involved in ICANN. > > I hope those of you who working for organizations representing individual > Internet users will consider becoming an "At-Large Structure" < > http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23may05.htm>, > the ICANN community needs you. > > Apologies for the interruption, good luck with input for the synthesis > document. > > Best, > > 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 > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 11 06:17:42 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:17:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Disclosure(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi. 3 days is correct. Just for the period around the open consultation and MAG meeting in Geneva next week. But as I was a MAG member and have been active in the caucus for some time, I think best to make this kind of disclosure. Best, Adam >Hello Adam Peake, > >Congratulations on your assignment as a >Consultant ( 3 years ?) your message says 3 >days... > >Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > >On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Adam Peake ><ajp at glocom.ac.jp> >wrote: > >Hi, > >Yesterday I signed a contract with the UN and >will join the IGF secretariat as consultant for >3 days next week.  Looking forward to working >with Avri, to supporting the MAG, the caucus and >any other stakeholder who passes through! > >But does mean I won't comment on substantive >issues and IGF/MAG procedural matters, at least >not for a while. I will continue to provide >information best I can. > >And.  September 5, ICANN's Nominating Committee >announced its selections ><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05sep08-en.htm>. >I will be joining the ALAC. Looking forward to >working with all of you involved in ICANN. > >I hope those of you who working for >organizations representing individual Internet >users will consider becoming an "At-Large >Structure" ><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23may05.htm>, >the ICANN community needs you. > >Apologies for the interruption, good luck with >input for the synthesis document. > >Best, > >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 > > > > >-- >http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 11 09:23:40 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:23:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <20080911040134.21733E1CDE@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080911040134.21733E1CDE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E7C8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Sorry to have dropped out of this discussion due to travel. After detaching and thinking about it I believe that the problem is really insoluble. The basic problem we are confronting is that the term "rights" has been stretched beyond the breaking point. The whole purpose of this document is to talk about "new" rights, to expand, with no apparent limit, the number of things that could be called an internet-related right. Each claimed "Right" or entitlement, however, involves a claim of a very different kind - some are collective rights, some individual, some negative, some positive, some seem to imply claims against society, some against the national state, some against international institutions. This grab-bag approach actually makes a rights discourse treacherous and unproductive rather than progressive. The proposal is to link FoE, privacy, and other traditional human rights to a discussion of IPR v. A2K, right to Internet, vaguely specified "cultural" rights, and virtually anything else one cares to frame as a right. At some point one has to stop and ask, "what policy objective could NOT be dressed up as a "Right" and put into this "rights discourse?" And if the answer is "nothing," then all we have succeeded in doing, imho, is to completely debase the concept of rights. When anything and everything is a right, nothing is a right, it is all just policy. Further, it is clear to me that the whole motivation for this rights discourse is not to bolster the enforcement and application of basic FoE, privacy or A2K rights, but to bring new positive rights into the discourse and elevate them to the same status as the others. This is a political strategy and sgenda that some of us have, but which is not widely shared. It would be little more than a platform coup d'etat to present this as the view of civil society. So, count me out. Unless the push for a rights discourse is limited to a few very specific, consistent and well-understood rights it will do more harm than good. > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > In my email below I suggested the new language for the contested para as > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: > > the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > > also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights > > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, > > respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural > > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural > > diversity. It may be noted that different people have different > > interpretations about rights, which makes a discussion on various > > rights important." (ends) > > > This was inadvertent due to picking from the wrong version of the doc, > because I have already agreed to replace 'positive and collective rights' > with 'other kinds of rights'. This is because we found that we cant agree > on > the meaning of these terms. > > Accordingly the para should read > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful in > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', which > may > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression - > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > Thanks. Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:47 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > > statement. > > > > As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC > > member, and not a co-coordinator. > > > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - > Different > > people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the > > contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also be > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a > > 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - including > the > > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted that > > different people have different interpretations about rights, which > makes > > a > > discussion on various rights important." (ends) > > > > Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the > draft > > does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can > sometimes > > conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents > of > > these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and > > possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over- > > arching > > theme of IGF-4. > > > > Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the > above > > text. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must > > observe > > that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes > > against > > 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of > > rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means > > that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is > > contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine > of > > indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather > their > > conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right > > for > > us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. > > > > It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the > > WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. > > > > "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or > > contradict universally agreed human rights." > > > > I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will > > impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > > > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen' > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > positive > > > > and > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the > > > statement. > > > > > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > > > collective > > > rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is > > > that > > > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > > > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and > those > > > who > > > also support positive and collective rights - without some level of > > basic > > > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple > and > > > obvious. > > > > > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can > > say > > > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, > > and > > > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any > > clear > > > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant > agree > > > on > > > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there > > > being > > > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also > > positive > > > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > > > > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective > rights..' > > . > > > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority > > > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > positive > > > > and > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division > > applies > > > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for > example > > > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are > saying, > > > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, > we > > > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more active > > > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, > "those > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet > by > > > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely > > > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see > absolutely > > > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that > > > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF > IV, > > > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis > > > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > > > indivisibility of > > > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > > > including of > > > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality, > > > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human > > rights > > > > and > > > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > > widely > > > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: > the > > > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > > also > > > > be > > > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be > meaningful > > > > in > > > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > > > > which > > > > > may > > > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural > > expression > > > > - > > > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, > which > > > > can > > > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas > > > > because if > > > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward > > towards > > > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to > > > > underpin > > > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also > important > > > > in > > > > > this > > > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full > > range > > > > of > > > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and > not > > a > > > > > right > > > > > > as > > > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly > meaning > > > > > specific > > > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, > > > > cultural > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must > be > > > > able > > > > > to > > > > > > say > > > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are > > > > > collective. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term > > indeed > > > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective > > > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights > individuals > > > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective > > > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all > > > > these > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective > > > > rights. > > > > > That > > > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with > those > > > > that > > > > > may > > > > > > be > > > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same > > category, > > > > and > > > > > > need > > > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 15:38:45 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:08:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E7C8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080911040134.21733E1CDE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E7C8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello Milton Mueller, Your arguments sum up the core objections, may I suggest that this message be taken to the thread on final arguments ? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Sorry to have dropped out of this discussion due to travel. After > detaching and thinking about it I believe that the problem is really > insoluble. The basic problem we are confronting is that the term > "rights" has been stretched beyond the breaking point. > > The whole purpose of this document is to talk about "new" rights, to > expand, with no apparent limit, the number of things that could be > called an internet-related right. Each claimed "Right" or entitlement, > however, involves a claim of a very different kind - some are collective > rights, some individual, some negative, some positive, some seem to > imply claims against society, some against the national state, some > against international institutions. This grab-bag approach actually > makes a rights discourse treacherous and unproductive rather than > progressive. > > The proposal is to link FoE, privacy, and other traditional human rights > to a discussion of IPR v. A2K, right to Internet, vaguely specified > "cultural" rights, and virtually anything else one cares to frame as a > right. > > At some point one has to stop and ask, "what policy objective could NOT > be dressed up as a "Right" and put into this "rights discourse?" > > And if the answer is "nothing," then all we have succeeded in doing, > imho, is to completely debase the concept of rights. When anything and > everything is a right, nothing is a right, it is all just policy. > > Further, it is clear to me that the whole motivation for this rights > discourse is not to bolster the enforcement and application of basic > FoE, privacy or A2K rights, but to bring new positive rights into the > discourse and elevate them to the same status as the others. This is a > political strategy and sgenda that some of us have, but which is not > widely shared. It would be little more than a platform coup d'etat to > present this as the view of civil society. > > So, count me out. Unless the push for a rights discourse is limited to a > few very specific, consistent and well-understood rights it will do more > harm than good. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:01 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > In my email below I suggested the new language for the contested para > as > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > > > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: > > > the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > > > also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights > > > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, > > > respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural > > > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > > > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of > cultural > > > diversity. It may be noted that different people have different > > > interpretations about rights, which makes a discussion on various > > > rights important." (ends) > > > > > > This was inadvertent due to picking from the wrong version of the doc, > > because I have already agreed to replace 'positive and collective > rights' > > with 'other kinds of rights'. This is because we found that we cant > agree > > on > > the meaning of these terms. > > > > Accordingly the para should read > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > be > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > in > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > which > > may > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression > - > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > can > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > Thanks. Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:47 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean > completely > > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have > different > > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in > the > > > > statement. > > > > > > As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an > IGC > > > member, and not a co-coordinator. > > > > > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - > > Different > > > people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of > the > > > contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > also be > > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, > a > > > 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - > including > > the > > > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted > that > > > different people have different interpretations about rights, which > > makes > > > a > > > discussion on various rights important." (ends) > > > > > > Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the > > draft > > > does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can > > sometimes > > > conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the > proponents > > of > > > these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out > and > > > possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over- > > > arching > > > theme of IGF-4. > > > > > > Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the > > above > > > text. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must > > > observe > > > that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes > > > against > > > 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality > of > > > rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one > means > > > that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which > is > > > contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the > doctrine > > of > > > indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather > > their > > > conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is > right > > > for > > > us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. > > > > > > It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during > the > > > WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. > > > > > > "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, > or > > > contradict universally agreed human rights." > > > > > > I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will > > > impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > > > > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani > Tarvainen' > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > > positive > > > > > and > > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on > analytical > > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean > completely > > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have > different > > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in > the > > > > statement. > > > > > > > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > > > > collective > > > > rights - because many people have said here that their real > problem is > > > > that > > > > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > > > > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and > > those > > > > who > > > > also support positive and collective rights - without some level > of > > > basic > > > > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is > simple > > and > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights > can > > > say > > > > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights > which I, > > > and > > > > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting > any > > > clear > > > > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant > > agree > > > > on > > > > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about > there > > > > being > > > > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also > > > positive > > > > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > > > > > > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective > > rights..' > > > . > > > > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, > minority > > > > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > > positive > > > > > and > > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on > analytical > > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean > completely > > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division > > > applies > > > > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for > > example > > > > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are > > saying, > > > > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not > meaningful, > > we > > > > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more > active > > > > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, > > "those > > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the > internet > > by > > > > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather > squarely > > > > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see > > absolutely > > > > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with > that > > > > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of > IGF > > IV, > > > > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the > synthesis > > > > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > > > > indivisibility of > > > > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > > > > including of > > > > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the > universality, > > > > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human > > > rights > > > > > and > > > > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > > > widely > > > > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: > > the > > > > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It > may > > > also > > > > > be > > > > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be > > meaningful > > > > > in > > > > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the > Internet', > > > > > which > > > > > > may > > > > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural > > > expression > > > > > - > > > > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, > > which > > > > > can > > > > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural > diversity'." > > > > > > > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic > areas > > > > > because if > > > > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward > > > towards > > > > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda > to > > > > > underpin > > > > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also > > important > > > > > in > > > > > > this > > > > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of > full > > > range > > > > > of > > > > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category > and > > not > > > a > > > > > > right > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly > > meaning > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic > rights, > > > > > cultural > > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one > must > > be > > > > > able > > > > > > to > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights > are > > > > > > collective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term > > > indeed > > > > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some > of > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose > collective > > > > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights > > individuals > > > > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where > collective > > > > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of > all > > > > > these > > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and > collective > > > > > rights. > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with > > those > > > > > that > > > > > > may > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same > > > category, > > > > > and > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with > such a > > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 11 17:46:48 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:46:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required Message-ID: <82935D5C6998462FA5356BC4CD307DB4@IAN> Folks, I am about to post the final version of the rights statement. Time has run out, and we have to give a YES or NO response within 48 hours. I have had to try to steer a path between those who would feel uncomfortable with any statement that suggested exploring new and contentious rights, and those who would want to reject any statement that did not. Milton described the problem as insoluble - perhaps he is right. But with many of us feeling that this rights theme must be explored, I have had to try to come up with something acceptable to both parties. I believe the only way this could be done was to substantially change the emphasis of the statement. I have attempted to do this, and in the process may well have upset some. My intention here is quite clear - to get a statement acceptable to this list. To me it's important that we advance the theme and have this emphasis at Cairo. In the process we may all have to give a little. We may not agree with everything. I've changed the order of a few things to improve acceptability, emphasis, and expression. More than I normally would want to at this stage. But I believe that was necessary to get a consensus statement. Let me also say that this has been one of the most interesting discussions on this list for some time, with some very valid, expert, and differing opinions being advanced. My attempt at a statement acceptable to everyone follows in a separate message. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 11 17:51:51 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:51:51 +1000 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. Message-ID: Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 11 17:59:20 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:59:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required Message-ID: Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours to meet the Secretariat's deadline. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. ________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From hitriciawang at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 18:08:42 2008 From: hitriciawang at gmail.com (tricia wang) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:08:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My VOTE IS YES! Dear Ian, I am new to his list, as I was invited by Parminder when I met him in Bangalore a few months ago. I've been meaning to introduce myself to you and right now seems like a good time to do so! :) I research Internet Access through a rights reasoning approach. I just presented my first draft of "Internet Access As a Social Right: Implications for Social Citizenship" at a conference in Stockholm. i've attached a draft of my paper if you are interested in reading it - I find that it addresses A LOT of what's discussed in this statement for IGF-4 in Egypt. (Actually I am wondering what is IGF-4? and this "thing" in Egypt?) Since I am new, I am still trying to understand how I can best participate and contribute in a meaningful and sustainable way - meaningful for the end goal of the group's mission and sustainable for my own energy :0) - emails rejoinders can take a long time to construct! :) The email exchanges can be quite intense but I've learned so much just through reading everyone's opinions and lines of logics. ok I look forward to more exchanges with you in the future! ciao for now tricia wang -- tricia wang Sociology P.h.D Program UC San Diego www.triciawang.pbwiki.com skype: triciawang AIM: hitriciawang e-mail: hitriciawang at gmail.com mobile: (+011)718.755.6430 On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > *Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline.* > > * * > > *Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt * > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > *A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet* > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the rightto know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. > Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet > are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies > and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It > can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a 'right to access > the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to > electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a > right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important > IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right > of association and the right to political participation may have important > new implications in the internet age, > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. > We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with > each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that > WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework > helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops > on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internet Access as a Social Right_v11.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 309096 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Thu Sep 11 18:47:30 2008 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:47:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ian and all: Since the 2 statements essentially deal with different subject matter, I'd suggest submitting both statements. One is more "nuts and bolts": how to make IGF more effective and responsive; and the other has a specific vision and direction on rights that we'd like to see IGF go in. They would both be valuable contributions to the dialogue. Thanks to the drafters, editors, commentators, critics, supporters, etc. for the rich debate. My 2 cents, Robin On Sep 11, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within > 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the > 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important > to lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other > interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF > meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially > keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including > those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of > global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing > global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans > another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going > forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should > continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is > heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the > fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF > spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these > WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some > outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through > control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be > used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and > social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill > all our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 10 20:51:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:51:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <20080910171731.4F19EA6CEE@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20080911040134.21733E1CDE@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E7C8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C86B90.C8B0EDDA@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Nicely articulated, and largely correct and/or accurate IMO. As you indicate here, and have in other posts, as have I and others, some wants/desires are not and cannot become rights for many of the reasons already articulated, even though we or anyone may have a strong personal opinion that such concepts "Should" be considered a "Right" vis a vi the Internet and/or it's use. I believe as you seem to Milton, that this is at the crux or the disagreement for the Synthesis paper, which would carry over in the actual defining of what we state or espouse as actual "Right" vis a vi the Internet and/or it's use. Milton L Mueller wrote: > Sorry to have dropped out of this discussion due to travel. After > detaching and thinking about it I believe that the problem is really > insoluble. The basic problem we are confronting is that the term > "rights" has been stretched beyond the breaking point. > > The whole purpose of this document is to talk about "new" rights, to > expand, with no apparent limit, the number of things that could be > called an internet-related right. Each claimed "Right" or entitlement, > however, involves a claim of a very different kind - some are collective > rights, some individual, some negative, some positive, some seem to > imply claims against society, some against the national state, some > against international institutions. This grab-bag approach actually > makes a rights discourse treacherous and unproductive rather than > progressive. > > The proposal is to link FoE, privacy, and other traditional human rights > to a discussion of IPR v. A2K, right to Internet, vaguely specified > "cultural" rights, and virtually anything else one cares to frame as a > right. > > At some point one has to stop and ask, "what policy objective could NOT > be dressed up as a "Right" and put into this "rights discourse?" > > And if the answer is "nothing," then all we have succeeded in doing, > imho, is to completely debase the concept of rights. When anything and > everything is a right, nothing is a right, it is all just policy. > > Further, it is clear to me that the whole motivation for this rights > discourse is not to bolster the enforcement and application of basic > FoE, privacy or A2K rights, but to bring new positive rights into the > discourse and elevate them to the same status as the others. This is a > political strategy and sgenda that some of us have, but which is not > widely shared. It would be little more than a platform coup d'etat to > present this as the view of civil society. > > So, count me out. Unless the push for a rights discourse is limited to a > few very specific, consistent and well-understood rights it will do more > harm than good. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:01 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > In my email below I suggested the new language for the contested para > as > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > > > widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: > > > the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > > > also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights > > > may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, > > > respectively, a 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural > > > expression - including the right to have an Internet in ones own > > > language, which can inform the important IGF thematic area of > cultural > > > diversity. It may be noted that different people have different > > > interpretations about rights, which makes a discussion on various > > > rights important." (ends) > > > > > > This was inadvertent due to picking from the wrong version of the doc, > > because I have already agreed to replace 'positive and collective > rights' > > with 'other kinds of rights'. This is because we found that we cant > agree > > on > > the meaning of these terms. > > > > Accordingly the para should read > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > widely > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may also > be > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be meaningful > in > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet', > which > > may > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural expression > - > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which > can > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural diversity'." > > > > > > Thanks. Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:47 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean > completely > > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have > different > > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in > the > > > > statement. > > > > > > As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an > IGC > > > member, and not a co-coordinator. > > > > > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - > > Different > > > people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of > the > > > contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for > widely > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may > also be > > > useful to explore if and how positive and collective rights may be > > > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, > a > > > 'right to the Internet', or a right of cultural expression - > including > > the > > > right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the > > > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. It may be noted > that > > > different people have different interpretations about rights, which > > makes > > > a > > > discussion on various rights important." (ends) > > > > > > Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the > > draft > > > does mention that - " We also recognize that rights claims can > > sometimes > > > conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the > proponents > > of > > > these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out > and > > > possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over- > > > arching > > > theme of IGF-4. > > > > > > Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the > > above > > > text. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must > > > observe > > > that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes > > > against > > > 'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality > of > > > rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one > means > > > that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which > is > > > contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the > doctrine > > of > > > indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather > > their > > > conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is > right > > > for > > > us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements. > > > > > > It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during > the > > > WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. > > > > > > "Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, > or > > > contradict universally agreed human rights." > > > > > > I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will > > > impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM > > > > To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani > Tarvainen' > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > > positive > > > > > and > > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on > analytical > > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean > completely > > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." > > > > > > > > The solution then is to say what you say above. People have > different > > > > interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in > the > > > > statement. > > > > > > > > The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and > > > > collective > > > > rights - because many people have said here that their real > problem is > > > > that > > > > are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are > > > > contestations between people who only admit individual rights and > > those > > > > who > > > > also support positive and collective rights - without some level > of > > > basic > > > > agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is > simple > > and > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights > can > > > say > > > > that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights > which I, > > > and > > > > many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting > any > > > clear > > > > reply to that. So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant > > agree > > > > on > > > > what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about > there > > > > being > > > > differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also > > > positive > > > > and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not? > > > > > > > > And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those > > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > > > As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective > > rights..' > > > . > > > > Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, > minority > > > > rights, linguistic rights.... ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > > > > Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, > > positive > > > > > and > > > > > > collective rights, since we are not able to agree on > analytical > > > > > > difference/ > > > > > > > > > > it is not a satisfactory solution. > > > > > > > > > > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean > completely > > > > > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division > > > applies > > > > > not only within civil society, but to states and business, for > > example > > > > > IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are > > saying, > > > > > "those individual rights you care about so much are not > meaningful, > > we > > > > > need a different conception that pushes states into a more > active > > > > > guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, > > "those > > > > > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we > > > > > consider rights." > > > > > > > > > > I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the > internet > > by > > > > > pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather > squarely > > > > > face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see > > absolutely > > > > > no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with > that > > > > > problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of > IGF > > IV, > > > > > you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the > synthesis > > > > > paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please. > > > > > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > > > > > meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the > > > > > indivisibility of > > > > > > human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents, > > > > > including of > > > > > > the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the > universality, > > > > > > indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human > > > rights > > > > > and > > > > > > fundamental freedoms...' > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by > > > widely > > > > > > recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human > rights: > > the > > > > > > individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It > may > > > also > > > > > be > > > > > > useful to explore if and how other kinds of rights may be > > meaningful > > > > > in > > > > > > relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the > Internet', > > > > > which > > > > > > may > > > > > > relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and a right of cultural > > > expression > > > > > - > > > > > > including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, > > which > > > > > can > > > > > > inform the important IGF thematic area of 'cultural > diversity'." > > > > > > > > > > > > I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic > areas > > > > > because if > > > > > > we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward > > > towards > > > > > > achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda > to > > > > > underpin > > > > > > IGF's deliberations. > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also > > important > > > > > in > > > > > > this > > > > > > context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of > full > > > range > > > > > of > > > > > > IGF's work and discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM > > > > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder > > > > > > > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category > and > > not > > > a > > > > > > right > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly > > meaning > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic > rights, > > > > > cultural > > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > > minority rights, right to development etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one > must > > be > > > > > able > > > > > > to > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > that one doesn't believe in the above rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights > are > > > > > > collective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term > > > indeed > > > > > > > carries different meanings, and people want to reject some > of > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose > collective > > > > > > > rights as justification of individual rights - rights > > individuals > > > > > > > would have because of their membership in a group. > > > > > > > The opposition stems from the other meaning, where > collective > > > > > > > rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of > all > > > > > these > > > > > > > rights, > > > > > > > > and not mention the terms negative, positive and > collective > > > > > rights. > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with > > those > > > > > that > > > > > > may > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > considered negative and positive rights are in the same > > > category, > > > > > and > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with > such a > > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be a useful approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 10 21:20:57 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:20:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no References: Message-ID: <48C87279.B19CDEC3@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, I can, and I believe our members can largely, but with some reservations, agree with this. The more important work will be in the actual drafting of the specific "Rights" in the proposed "Internet Bill of Rights". I hope that I will be able and welcome to participate in that effort as it is very important to our members, and users all over the world. Thank you Ian for you great patience in this effort and process! >:) Ian Peter wrote: > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and > the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and > that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a > rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus > has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was > sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of > Rights. > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse > at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the > Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify > and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet > are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and > strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within > the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the > nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which > they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for > this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF > meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it > might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" > means. > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people’s homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the > right to know and completely ‘own’ the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on > the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun > public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as > a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. > The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles > which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a > right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how > individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer > electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled > with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a ‘right to > access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar > to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural > expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, > could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where > information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. > Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens > in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these > rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme > area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of > association and the right to political participation may have > important new implications in the internet age, > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or > compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the > proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The > change in the technical methods of communication often undermines > pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the > IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other > global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for > IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > A rights-based IG shouldn’t be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that > can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to > recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, > and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and > polices. > > It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take > up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully > expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards > developing ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of the > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 10 21:22:29 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:22:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response References: Message-ID: <48C872D5.83551F61@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, Yes. Ian Peter wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > Review of the IGF > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > ________________________________ > > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: message-footer.txt > message-footer.txt Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: 7bit Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 19:45:57 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:45:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70809111645r450175a8n20079bffdd136349@mail.gmail.com> YES to this document but both should have been posted so that the different nature of the documents could have been understood. Fouad Bajwa On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 21:40:48 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:40:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: YES On 12/09/2008, at 5:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 > hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the > 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to > lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other > interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF > meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep > in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including > those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of > global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing > global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans > another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going > forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should > continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is > heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the > fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. > IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these > WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some > outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through > control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be > used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and > social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all > our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > -- 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 Thu Sep 11 21:40:26 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:40:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C43D65E-D074-460E-A0B8-5B76890E0924@Malcolm.id.au> I am going to vote YES despite my strong reservations about certain of the rights posited here, on the basis that at least this will put the topic of rights squarely on the agenda where the disagreements we have can be debated openly and in depth. However if it would be possible to substitute "Internet" for "internet", all the better. On 12/09/2008, at 5:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > > > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and > the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and > that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a > rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The > Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject > which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet > Bill of Rights. > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a > discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights > and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify > and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the > Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of > human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized > and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even > within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to > the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to > which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and > political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the > same time be further widening economic, social and political > divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central > theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and > digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right > to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people’s homes > and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and > citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges > including the right to know and completely ‘own’ the products and > services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control > user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly > sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional > concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging > as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information > society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest > principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the > concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can > also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, > and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment > can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to > protect copyrights. > > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a ‘right to > access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it > (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of > cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own > language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural > diversity. > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information > presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, > where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra > cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from > citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of > these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness > theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right > of association and the right to political participation may have > important new implications in the internet age, > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and > claim “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and > enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes > conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty > about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual > situation. The change in the technical methods of communication > often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal > categories. > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the > IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no > other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for > IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights- > based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn’t be seen as threatening, but rather > rights provide a set of international standards and guiding > principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is > pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric > information society, and a rights framework helps develop people- > centric IG agenda and polices. > > > It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take > up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will > also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC > fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards > developing ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of > the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > 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 -- 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 nhklein at gmx.net Thu Sep 11 22:36:49 2008 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:36:49 +0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: <9C43D65E-D074-460E-A0B8-5B76890E0924@Malcolm.id.au> References: <9C43D65E-D074-460E-A0B8-5B76890E0924@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <200809120936.49543.nhklein@gmx.net> Just a quick comment onone point onnly: On Friday, 12 September 2008 08:40:26 Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am going to vote YES despite my strong reservations about certain of > the rights posited here, on the basis that at least this will put the > topic of rights squarely on the agenda where the disagreements we have > can be debated openly and in depth. However if it would be possible > to substitute "Internet" for "internet", all the better. To substitute "Internet" for "internet" would, of course, open another wide debate, which has been also going on for some time. In my context of colleagues, friends, mailing lists etc. the use of "Internet" indicates that we talk about the system we use here - with ONE common root and point-to-point connectivity with all who participate, and for which ICANN is having an important function. But there are alternative systms, using an alternative root, independent from ICANN, and offering - first of all - connectivity among those who use their specific internet system. Some of them provide connectivity to the Internet, but from the Internet to these internets, connectivity depends on setting specific gateways etc. and a lot of technical, social, and legal implications are far from being discussed to the end. I would prefer to keep Internet in this document - though the discusion of a variety of smaller internets is an interstng discussion, but we did not engage in it here. Norbert klein Open Institute - Cambodia -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Thu Sep 11 22:42:35 2008 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:42:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. References: Message-ID: <0c1301c91481$3793f570$6b01a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> I've read all 100+ contributions to the development of this Consensus paper. And while I've not had the opportunity to study them within the full context of my life experiences, it does present a clear direction and is worth pursuing. I vote yes. Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:51 PM Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 23:40:42 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050809112040x23b0462do8732758e3a5ac886@mail.gmail.com> Yes.. Well done IGF contribution - a rich endorsement of the open, transparent, representative, material, timely, deep, sweeping, inclusive, substantive, and more ... (the original far superior of course to this brief list of projected feature markers).. Thanking you. LDMF. On 9/11/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > YES > > On 12/09/2008, at 5:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less >> controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 >> hours >> to meet the Secretariat's deadline. >> >> >> Review of the IGF >> >> >> The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the >> continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >> recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two >> sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the >> 'examining' or >> review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on >> the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. >> >> >> >> Process of review >> >> >> >> As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be >> centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These >> consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to >> lay >> out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be >> necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other >> interested >> stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF >> meetings. >> In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep >> in >> mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at >> present, including constituencies in developing counties including >> those >> of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues >> like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be >> especially reached out to. >> >> >> >> If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process >> of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not >> advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that >> offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. >> The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of >> global >> public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political >> significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy >> institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with >> one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing >> global >> institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of >> perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. >> >> >> >> It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, >> preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a >> workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see >> http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans >> another >> one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop >> should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going >> forward'. >> Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure >> >> >> >> On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation >> of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should >> continue >> beyond its first mandated period of five years. >> >> >> >> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that >> are >> in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >> controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be >> sought. >> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >> participative and democratic. >> >> >> >> The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes >> at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is >> heartening >> to note that some such national and regional processes are already >> taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to >> establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the >> fear of >> governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >> should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >> appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. >> IGC >> offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. >> >> >> >> A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is >> evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an >> inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF >> event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in >> Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these >> WGs as >> required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the >> run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some >> outsiders >> are expected to prepare for main sessions. >> >> >> >> As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to >> have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any >> possibility of special interests influencing its working through >> control >> over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and >> streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and >> other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be >> used to >> ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and >> social >> groups. >> >> >> >> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the >> last >> few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions >> where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very >> different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of >> the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. >> However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better >> resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all >> our >> expectations from this unique global institution. >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- For further I.D.: Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. CONGO Education Committee Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. National Disability Party International Disability Caucus Persons with Pain International WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant. 2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council Invitee, Harvard and Yale Meetings on ICT rights / Development / Law. Member Assoc. Computing Machinery./ American Bar Assn, Trigeminal Neuralia Assn. U.N. Mental Health Committee SubComittee on ICT. 4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets Reearch Asst.G.A. Resolutions in Our Changing World. 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 From email at hakik.org Fri Sep 12 00:55:24 2008 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:55:24 +0600 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080912045428.3D872A6C55@smtp2.electricembers.net> I vote YES. However, as the discussions revealed the 'right to Internet' issue may be given more in-depth look at the future IGF session. Best regards, Hakikur Rahman SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh At 03:51 AM 9/12/2008, Ian Peter wrote: >Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO >to adoption of this statement so it can be sent >to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > > >Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > >The Internet Governance Caucus strongly >recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be >made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, >and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the >desire for developing a rights-based discourse >in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus >has already expressed support for the letter on >this subject which was sent to the MAG by the >Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > >The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to >shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and >specifically to help make 'Rights and the >Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > >A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights > should be to clarify and reach greater > consensus on how rights with respect to the > Internet are defined, how they relate to > pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally > recognized and strengthened. Within this > context, we acknowledge that, even within the > civil society caucus, differences of opinion > exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they > should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. > > >While the internet opens unprecedented economic, >social and political opportunities in many >areas, many fear that it may at the same time be >further widening economic, social and political >divides. It is for this reason that development >has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to >date. In this new, more global and digital >context it might be useful to explore what the >term "right to development" means. > > > >With respect to privacy rights, corporations and >governments are increasingly able to extend >digital tentacles into people’s homes and >personal devices, in manners invisible to >consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital >products thus face new challenges including the >right to know and completely ‘own’ the products >and services they pay for. Technological >measures to monitor and control user behavior on >the internet are becoming increasingly >sophisticated, and often outrun public policies >and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > > >While property rights are of considerable >importance, their applicability and mutations in >the digital environment have led to widespread >political contention over the proper scope of >copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, >intellectual property is emerging as a primary >area of socio-economic conflict in the >information society. The IGF can explore issues >surrounding the public interest principles which >underpin intellectual property claims alongside >the concept of a right to access knowledge in >the digital space It can also explore how >individuals' property right to own, build, test, >and use consumer electronics, computers and >other forms of equipment can be reconciled with >the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > >It may also be useful to explore if and how >other concepts may be meaningful in relation to >the Internet – for instance, a ‘right to access >the Internet unconditional of the use being made >of it (similar to electricity and telephone). >Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a >right to have an Internet in ones own language, >could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > >Other important internet policy areas, like >network neutrality, are being framed in terms of >rights, such as a right to access and share >information, or as an extension of freedom of >expression itself. The right of the public to >access government-produced information presents >itself in a wholly new manner in a digital >environment, where information is often publicly >sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive >acts of withholding digital public information >from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a >form of censorship. All of these rights-based >conceptions may be included in the IGF openness >theme area along with open standards Other >rights such as the right of association and the >right to political participation may have >important new implications in the internet age, > > >We recognize that while it is relatively easy to >articulate and claim “rights” it is much more >difficult to agree on, implement and enforce >them. We also recognize that rights claims can >sometimes conflict or compete with each other. >There can also be uncertainty about the proper >application of a rights claim to a factual >situation. The change in the technical methods >of communication often undermines pre-existing >understandings of how to apply legal categories. > >These complexities, however, only strengthen the >case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and >debate these problems. There is no other global >forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > >Internet governance has up to this time largely >been founded in technical principles and, >increasingly, on the internet’s functionality as >a giant global marketplace. With the internet >becoming increasingly central to many social >and political institutions, an alternative >foundation and conceptual framework for IG can >be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus >that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > >A rights-based IG shouldn’t be seen as >threatening, but rather rights provide a set of >international standards and guiding principles >that can help to inform complex policy >decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that >WSIS called for a people-centric information >society, and a rights framework helps develop >people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > > >It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum >best suited to take up this task. This process >should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where >workshops on rights issues are being >planned. These issues will also hopefully >figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC >fully expects that these discussions will help >the IGF work towards developing ‘Rights and the >Internet’ as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > >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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 01:16:15 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:16:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > *Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline.* > NO Such extensive changes at Last Call are not Best Practice in the standards and numbering worlds I participate in, and I think that they should not be encouraged/allowed in this group. While I appreciate the extensive work Ian has done on rewriting this, I have to say no on process. NB: I am not saying there has been a charter violation here, just that it's not a practice that I find acceptable. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Sep 12 02:02:21 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:02:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080912060220.GB26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:51:51AM +1000, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement > so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. You have done a good job, and, with some hesitation, I vote yes. I would like to suggest, however, as others have done, that "Internet" be consistently capitalized (I hope inconsistency there wasn't intended as a compromise...). People might wish to take a look at "internet vs. Internet" in http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2828.html on this point. My second major caveat is procedural, echoing McTim: doing a major rewrite and then immediate consensus call is not good. In the present case, however, I think this is better than doing no statement at all and time doesn't allow much further debate. So, yes it is. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Sep 12 02:20:09 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:20:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: <20080912060220.GB26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <20080912060220.GB26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <48CA0A19.4000008@wzb.eu> Hi, I am traveling as well and find it difficult to follow the debate in any detail. I have read the statement and find some of the language rather difficult to understand. For example, what is the difference between various rights and conceptual rights in the following sentence? Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. I vote YES to express my confidence in the caucus rather than in the text. jeanette Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:51:51AM +1000, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement >> so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > You have done a good job, and, with some hesitation, I vote yes. > > I would like to suggest, however, as others have done, that "Internet" > be consistently capitalized (I hope inconsistency there wasn't > intended as a compromise...). People might wish to take a look at > "internet vs. Internet" in http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2828.html > on this point. > > My second major caveat is procedural, echoing McTim: > doing a major rewrite and then immediate consensus call is not good. > In the present case, however, I think this is better than doing > no statement at all and time doesn't allow much further debate. > So, yes it is. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 12 02:22:07 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:22:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CA0A8F.2030106@wzb.eu> I support this statement as well. jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 12 02:29:40 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no Message-ID: <543529.78706.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> >From what I can tell, using the definition given for capitalising "internet" means, if one were to carry this definition across to other areas, it should, for example, never be "road" when referring to a "road network". After all, a road network is a series of or network of "roads". Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Tapani Tarvainen To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Friday, 12 September, 2008 4:02:21 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:51:51AM +1000, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement > so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. You have done a good job, and, with some hesitation, I vote yes. I would like to suggest, however, as others have done, that "Internet" be consistently capitalized (I hope inconsistency there wasn't intended as a compromise...). People might wish to take a look at "internet vs. Internet" in http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2828.html on this point. My second major caveat is procedural, echoing McTim: doing a major rewrite and then immediate consensus call is not good. In the present case, however, I think this is better than doing no statement at all and time doesn't allow much further debate. So, yes it is. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Sep 12 02:31:46 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:31:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080912063146.GC26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:59:20AM +1000, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. Yes to this as well, I see nothing really problematic here (even "Internet" is capitalized in the one (!) place where it occurs). -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Sep 12 02:43:30 2008 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:43:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: <543529.78706.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <543529.78706.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080912064330.GD26791@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:29:40PM -0700, David Goldstein (goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au) wrote: > From what I can tell, using the definition given for capitalising > "internet" means, if one were to carry this definition across to > other areas, it should, for example, never be "road" when referring > to a "road network". After all, a road network is a series of or > network of "roads". If there were a single entity of Earth's roads that needed a name, it probably were capitalized. I like capitalizing Internet for the same reason I capitalize Earth or Moon: it is the name of a single entity, a proper noun. Compare: "tilling the earth", "Io is a moon of Jupiter". Different meaning, different capitalization. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Sep 12 03:11:58 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:11:58 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response References: <48CA0A8F.2030106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842626C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I support the statement 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 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Fri Sep 12 03:43:00 2008 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:43:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CA1D84.8030706@isoc.be> YES for me too Rudi Vansnick// President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw Vice-chair ISOC European Chapters Coordinating Council Board member EURALO (ALAC-ICANN) www.isoc.be - www.isoc.eu - www.euralo.org Ian Peter schreef: > > *Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline.* > > * * > > *Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt * > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and > the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and > that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a > rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus > has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was > sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse > at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the > Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > */A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet/* > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify > and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet > are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and > strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within > the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the > nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which > they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for > this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF > meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it > might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people’s homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the > right to know and completely ‘own’ the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on > the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun > public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as > a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. > The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles > which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a > right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how > individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer > electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled > with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a ‘right to > access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar > to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural > expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, > could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where > information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. > Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens > in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these > rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme > area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of > association and the right to political participation may have > important new implications in the internet age, > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or > compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the > proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The > change in the technical methods of communication often undermines > pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the > IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other > global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for > IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn’t be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that > can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to > recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, > and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and > polices. > > > > It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take > up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully > expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards > developing ‘Rights and the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of the > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.20/1666 - Release Date: 11/09/2008 7:03 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1667 - Release Date: 11/09/2008 18:55 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 12:57:29 2008 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:57:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: <48CA0A19.4000008@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <021901c914f8$b1950c70$0500a8c0@michael78xnoln> I'm in the same situation as Jeanette and concur with her comments (it is really a bit rough--the first paragraph should be somewhere in the body etc.etc. but I also vote YES as a good beginning and a suitable reflection of the range (and to a degree, depth) of our discussion on these issues... MG -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: September 11, 2008 11:20 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no Hi, I am traveling as well and find it difficult to follow the debate in any detail. I have read the statement and find some of the language rather difficult to understand. For example, what is the difference between various rights and conceptual rights in the following sentence? Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. I vote YES to express my confidence in the caucus rather than in the text. jeanette Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:51:51AM +1000, Ian Peter > (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this >> statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > You have done a good job, and, with some hesitation, I vote yes. > > I would like to suggest, however, as others have done, that "Internet" > be consistently capitalized (I hope inconsistency there wasn't > intended as a compromise...). People might wish to take a look at > "internet vs. Internet" in http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2828.html > on this point. > > My second major caveat is procedural, echoing McTim: > doing a major rewrite and then immediate consensus call is not good. > In the present case, however, I think this is better than doing no > statement at all and time doesn't allow much further debate. So, yes > it is. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Fri Sep 12 04:31:29 2008 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:31:29 +0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200809121531.29882.nhklein@gmx.net> My response is YES We have reached an important step on the way. As with many other things, we have to agree with intermediary steps in time, while looking beyond. Norbert Klein Associate Open Institute Phnom Penh CAMBODIA = On Friday, 12 September 2008 04:51:51 Ian Peter wrote: > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt [snip] -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 12 05:03:17 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:03:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E803@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I would have to vote NO because the initial paragraph with the WSIS Tunis Agenda's re-affirmation of FoE and privacy rights was deleted. I can't understand why. ________________________________ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 12 05:06:53 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:06:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E804@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I vote YES on the review statement > > On 12/09/2008, at 5:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 > > hours > > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > > > > Review of the IGF > > > > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the > > 'examining' or > > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > > > > > Process of review > > > > > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to > > lay > > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other > > interested > > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF > > meetings. > > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep > > in > > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > > present, including constituencies in developing counties including > > those > > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > > especially reached out to. > > > > > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of > > global > > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing > > global > > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans > > another > > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going > > forward'. > > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should > > continue > > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > > are > > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > > sought. > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > > participative and democratic. > > > > > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is > > heartening > > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the > > fear of > > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. > > IGC > > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these > > WGs as > > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some > > outsiders > > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > > possibility of special interests influencing its working through > > control > > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be > > used to > > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and > > social > > groups. > > > > > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > > last > > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all > > our > > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 12 05:12:54 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:12:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper In-Reply-To: <340ECC9076C4487EB3DB18A4094B3578@IAN> References: <340ECC9076C4487EB3DB18A4094B3578@IAN> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E805@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> What? So we DO have a "right to Internet" but we DON'T have a right to use it freely across national boundaries? This is why I voted no on the statement, and frankly Ian I think you should be embarrassed at rejecting this suggestion. This statement says little more than Article 19, but it's "controversial." ??? 1. 2. Different nations across the globe have differing concepts of freedom. Despite occasional attempts at restraint, the Internet has emerged as a medium for freedom of speech even in geographical regions where freedom of expression is restrained. The Internet is a medium to connect people across national boundaries and this is possible only as a free and unregulated medium. Controversial -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 11 07:07:53 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:07:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or noresponse References: <9C43D65E-D074-460E-A0B8-5B76890E0924@Malcolm.id.au> <200809120936.49543.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: <48C8FC09.669737CA@ix.netcom.com> Norbert and all, Hi again Norbert! Lonte time no hear from. I agree with your point made below. >:) Norbert Klein wrote: > Just a quick comment onone point onnly: > > On Friday, 12 September 2008 08:40:26 Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > I am going to vote YES despite my strong reservations about certain of > > the rights posited here, on the basis that at least this will put the > > topic of rights squarely on the agenda where the disagreements we have > > can be debated openly and in depth. However if it would be possible > > to substitute "Internet" for "internet", all the better. > > To substitute "Internet" for "internet" would, of course, open another wide > debate, which has been also going on for some time. > > In my context of colleagues, friends, mailing lists etc. the use of "Internet" > indicates that we talk about the system we use here - with ONE common root > and point-to-point connectivity with all who participate, and for which ICANN > is having an important function. > > But there are alternative systms, using an alternative root, independent from > ICANN, and offering - first of all - connectivity among those who use their > specific internet system. Some of them provide connectivity to the Internet, > but from the Internet to these internets, connectivity depends on setting > specific gateways etc. and a lot of technical, social, and legal implications > are far from being discussed to the end. > > I would prefer to keep Internet in this document - though the discusion of a > variety of smaller internets is an interstng discussion, but we did not > engage in it here. > > > Norbert klein > Open Institute - Cambodia > > -- > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, > please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: > > http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) > http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Fri Sep 12 05:23:33 2008 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:23:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no Message-ID: >Folks, I am about to post the final version of the rights statement. >Time has run out, and we have to give a YES or NO response within 48 >hours. I support the statement, Stefano Trumpy > >I have had to try to steer a path between those who would feel >uncomfortable with any statement that suggested exploring new and >contentious rights, and those who would want to reject any statement >that did not. Milton described the problem as insoluble - perhaps he >is right. But with many of us feeling that this rights theme must be >explored, I have had to try to come up with something acceptable to >both parties. > >I believe the only way this could be done was to substantially >change the emphasis of the statement. I have attempted to do this, >and in the process may well have upset some. My intention here is >quite clear - to get a statement acceptable to this list. To me it's >important that we advance the theme and have this emphasis at Cairo. > >In the process we may all have to give a little. We may not agree >with everything. > >I've changed the order of a few things to improve acceptability, >emphasis, and expression. More than I normally would want to at this >stage. But I believe that was necessary to get a consensus statement. > >Let me also say that this has been one of the most interesting >discussions on this list for some time, with some very valid, >expert, and differing opinions being advanced. > >My attempt at a statement acceptable to everyone follows in a >separate message. > > >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 > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Fri Sep 12 05:23:48 2008 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:23:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response Message-ID: >Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less >controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours >to meet the Secretariat's deadline. I vote YES Stefano Trumpy > > >Review of the IGF > > >The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the >continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum >participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two >sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or >review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on >the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > >Process of review > > > >As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be >centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These >consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay >out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be >necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested >stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. >In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in >mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at >present, including constituencies in developing counties including those >of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues >like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be >especially reached out to. > > > >If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process >of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not >advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that >offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. >The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global >public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political >significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy >institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with >one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global >institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of >perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > >It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, >preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a >workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see >http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another >one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop >should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. >Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > >On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation >of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue >beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > >It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are >in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more >controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to >the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. >Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet >policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more >participative and democratic. > > > >The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes >at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening >to note that some such national and regional processes are already >taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to >establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of >governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF >should use global civil society groups and processes to guide >appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC >offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > >A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is >evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an >inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF >event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in >Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as >required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the >run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders >are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > >As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to >have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any >possibility of special interests influencing its working through control >over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and >streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and >other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to >ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social >groups. > > > >We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last >few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions >where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very >different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of >the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. >However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better >resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our >expectations from this unique global institution. > > >________________________________ > > >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 > >Attachment converted: ALTRO:message-footer 4.txt (TEXT/MSWD) (00004464) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 05:39:00 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:39:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E803@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E803@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I Vote Yes On 9/12/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I would have to vote NO because the initial paragraph with the WSIS > Tunis Agenda's re-affirmation of FoE and privacy rights was deleted. I > can't understand why. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no > response required. > > > > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > > > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the > MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse > at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the > Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, > and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. > Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society > caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights > and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized > in internet governance discussions. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the > right > false&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true# > sdfootnote3sym> to know and completely 'own' the products and services > they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user > behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and > often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights > users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a > primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The > IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which > underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right > to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how > individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer > electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled > with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to > access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar > to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural > expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could > inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where > information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. > Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in > fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these > rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area > along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association > and the right to political participation may have important new > implications in the internet age, > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or > compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper > application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the > technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing > understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF > to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other > global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality > as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly > central to many social and political institutions, an alternative > foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the > view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate > for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect > that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights > framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects > that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights > and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > -- 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 55 31 Cell Phone: 237 79 34 21 32 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 05:42:51 2008 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:42:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E803@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I Vote Yes On 9/12/08, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > I Vote Yes > > On 9/12/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I would have to vote NO because the initial paragraph with the WSIS >> Tunis Agenda's re-affirmation of FoE and privacy rights was deleted. I >> can't understand why. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no >> response required. >> >> >> >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this >> statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. >> >> >> >> Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the >> Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the >> IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based >> discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already >> expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the >> MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. >> >> >> >> >> >> The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse >> at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the >> Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> >> >> A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet >> >> >> >> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and >> reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are >> defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, >> and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. >> Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society >> caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights >> and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized >> in internet governance discussions. >> >> >> >> While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political >> opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be >> further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this >> reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to >> date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to >> explore what the term "right to development" means. >> >> >> >> With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are >> increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and >> personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. >> Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the >> right >> > false&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true# >> sdfootnote3sym> to know and completely 'own' the products and services >> they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user >> behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and >> often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights >> users have. >> >> >> >> While property rights are of considerable importance, their >> applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to >> widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, >> trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a >> primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The >> IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which >> underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right >> to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how >> individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer >> electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled >> with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. >> >> It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be >> meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to >> access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar >> to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural >> expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could >> inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. >> >> >> >> Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are >> being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share >> information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The >> right of the public to access government-produced information presents >> itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where >> information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. >> Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in >> fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these >> rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area >> along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association >> and the right to political participation may have important new >> implications in the internet age, >> >> >> >> We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim >> "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce >> them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or >> compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper >> application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the >> technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing >> understandings of how to apply legal categories. >> >> >> >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF >> to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other >> global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a >> non-binding context. >> >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >> technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality >> as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly >> central to many social and political institutions, an alternative >> foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the >> view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate >> for this purpose. >> >> >> >> A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights >> provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can >> help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect >> that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights >> framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. >> >> >> >> It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up >> this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where >> workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also >> hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects >> that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights >> and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 55 31 > Cell Phone: 237 79 34 21 32 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31 Cell Phone: 237 79 34 21 32 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 11 08:02:21 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:02:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper References: <340ECC9076C4487EB3DB18A4094B3578@IAN> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E805@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48C908CD.527C69D3@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Milton makes a very good point here, IMO. In fact, in some countires every day citizens DO NOT have a "Right" to access to the Internet, and those that do in those countries, may have only a very limited level of access. National laws or policy, can be routed around true enough, but at some risk to those users that choose to do so. So as Milton rightly points out, the ussage of the Internet freely is to a great degree a matter of National law and policy. Even in the US, denial of use of the Internet can and has been denied some by court order in some particular circumstances. And as such, some US states, have taken those rulings and applied them to new State laws, which are often times politically motivated. Milton L Mueller wrote: > What? So we DO have a “right to Internet” but we DON’T have a right to > use it freely across national boundaries? This is why I voted no on > the statement, and frankly Ian I think you should be embarrassed at > rejecting this suggestion. This statement says little more than > Article 19, but it’s “controversial.” ??? > > 1. > > 2.Different nations across the globe have differing concepts of > freedom. Despite occasional attempts at restraint, the Internet has > emerged as a medium for freedom of speech even in geographical regions > where freedom of expression is restrained. The Internet is a medium to > connect people across national boundaries and this is possible only as > a free and unregulated medium. > > Controversial > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ginger at paque.net Fri Sep 12 07:21:08 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:51:08 -0430 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: <021901c914f8$b1950c70$0500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <48CA0A19.4000008@wzb.eu> <021901c914f8$b1950c70$0500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <00a601c914c9$afbb75d0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> I vote yes. The writing is not perfect, nor the consensus. Nonetheless, I think Ian did an incredible job in the situation. Thanks. -----Mensaje original----- De: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: Viernes, 12 de Septiembre de 2008 12:27 p.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' Asunto: RE: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no I'm in the same situation as Jeanette and concur with her comments (it is really a bit rough--the first paragraph should be somewhere in the body etc.etc. but I also vote YES as a good beginning and a suitable reflection of the range (and to a degree, depth) of our discussion on these issues... MG -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: September 11, 2008 11:20 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no Hi, I am traveling as well and find it difficult to follow the debate in any detail. I have read the statement and find some of the language rather difficult to understand. For example, what is the difference between various rights and conceptual rights in the following sentence? Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. I vote YES to express my confidence in the caucus rather than in the text. jeanette Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:51:51AM +1000, Ian Peter > (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this >> statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > You have done a good job, and, with some hesitation, I vote yes. > > I would like to suggest, however, as others have done, that "Internet" > be consistently capitalized (I hope inconsistency there wasn't > intended as a compromise...). People might wish to take a look at > "internet vs. Internet" in http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2828.html > on this point. > > My second major caveat is procedural, echoing McTim: > doing a major rewrite and then immediate consensus call is not good. > In the present case, however, I think this is better than doing no > statement at all and time doesn't allow much further debate. So, yes > it is. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Sep 12 08:15:29 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:15:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: <48C87279.B19CDEC3@ix.netcom.com> References: <48C87279.B19CDEC3@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050809120515l4af334f2ja6ebc8cc236b9754@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ian and All here, Thank you for the notification. I am in accord with Jeffrey's note and appreciate the formulation. Even more involved now in looking at issues of responsibiliies as well rights, in multiple venues, I look forward to reading and absorbing all the present drafts on the issues we are considering. With very best wishes, Linda M F (baby gmail access presently not affording spelling check; apologies for any misses).. On 9/10/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Ian and all, > > I can, and I believe our members can largely, but with > some reservations, agree with this. The more important work > will be in the actual drafting of the specific "Rights" in the > proposed "Internet Bill of Rights". I hope that I will be able > and welcome to participate in that effort as it is very important > to our members, and users all over the world. > > Thank you Ian for you great patience in this effort and process! >:) > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this >> statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. >> >> Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and >> the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and >> that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a >> rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus >> has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was >> sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of >> Rights. >> >> The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse >> at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the >> Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet >> >> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify >> and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet >> are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human >> rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and >> strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within >> the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the >> nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which >> they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. >> >> While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political >> opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be >> further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for >> this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF >> meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it >> might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" >> means. >> >> With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are >> increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and >> personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. >> Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the >> right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay >> for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on >> the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun >> public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. >> >> While property rights are of considerable importance, their >> applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to >> widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, >> trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as >> a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. >> The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles >> which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a >> right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how >> individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer >> electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled >> with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. >> >> It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be >> meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a 'right to >> access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar >> to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural >> expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, >> could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. >> >> Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are >> being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share >> information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The >> right of the public to access government-produced information presents >> itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where >> information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. >> Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens >> in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these >> rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme >> area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of >> association and the right to political participation may have >> important new implications in the internet age, >> >> We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim >> "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce >> them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or >> compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the >> proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The >> change in the technical methods of communication often undermines >> pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. >> >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the >> IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other >> global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a >> non-binding context. >> >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >> technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's >> functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet >> becoming increasingly central to many social and political >> institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for >> IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a >> rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. >> >> A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights >> provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that >> can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to >> recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, >> and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and >> polices. >> >> It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take >> up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where >> workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also >> hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully >> expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards >> developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the >> IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> 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 >> > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- For further I.D.: Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. CONGO Education Committee Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. National Disability Party International Disability Caucus Persons with Pain International WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant. 2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council Invitee, Harvard and Yale Meetings on ICT rights / Development / Law. Member Assoc. Computing Machinery./ American Bar Assn, Trigeminal Neuralia Assn. U.N. Mental Health Committee SubComittee on ICT. 4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets Reearch Asst.G.A. Resolutions in Our Changing World. 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 From maxsenges at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 08:34:50 2008 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (maxsenges at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:34:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E803@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0809120534l3f9c4253u3b22b8d1a1cd085c@mail.gmail.com> I vote yes - thanks for setting this up - I have a deadline today so I didn't follow the development process, but the final document looks pretty good to me. Best Max On 9/12/08, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > I Vote Yes > > On 9/12/08, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: >> I Vote Yes >> >> On 9/12/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> I would have to vote NO because the initial paragraph with the WSIS >>> Tunis Agenda's re-affirmation of FoE and privacy rights was deleted. I >>> can't understand why. >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:52 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no >>> response required. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this >>> statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the >>> Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the >>> IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based >>> discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already >>> expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the >>> MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse >>> at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the >>> Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. >>> >>> >>> >>> A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet >>> >>> >>> >>> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and >>> reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are >>> defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, >>> and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. >>> Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society >>> caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights >>> and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized >>> in internet governance discussions. >>> >>> >>> >>> While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political >>> opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be >>> further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this >>> reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to >>> date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to >>> explore what the term "right to development" means. >>> >>> >>> >>> With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are >>> increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and >>> personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. >>> Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the >>> right >>> >> false&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true# >>> sdfootnote3sym> to know and completely 'own' the products and services >>> they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user >>> behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and >>> often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights >>> users have. >>> >>> >>> >>> While property rights are of considerable importance, their >>> applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to >>> widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, >>> trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a >>> primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The >>> IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which >>> underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right >>> to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how >>> individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer >>> electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled >>> with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. >>> >>> It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be >>> meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to >>> access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar >>> to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural >>> expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could >>> inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are >>> being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share >>> information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The >>> right of the public to access government-produced information presents >>> itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where >>> information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. >>> Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in >>> fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these >>> rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area >>> along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association >>> and the right to political participation may have important new >>> implications in the internet age, >>> >>> >>> >>> We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim >>> "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce >>> them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or >>> compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper >>> application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the >>> technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing >>> understandings of how to apply legal categories. >>> >>> >>> >>> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF >>> to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other >>> global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a >>> non-binding context. >>> >>> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >>> technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality >>> as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly >>> central to many social and political institutions, an alternative >>> foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the >>> view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate >>> for this purpose. >>> >>> >>> >>> A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights >>> provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can >>> help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect >>> that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights >>> framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up >>> this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where >>> workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also >>> hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects >>> that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights >>> and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 55 31 >> Cell Phone: 237 79 34 21 32 >> Fax. 237 3342 29 70 >> > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 55 31 > Cell Phone: 237 79 34 21 32 > 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- Dr. Max Senges Stanford Post-Doc Visiting Scholar UOC Research Associate Freelance Consultant 98 Loyola Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025 US-Phone: (001) 650 714 9826 www.maxsenges.com www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com ------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 08:40:18 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:40:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response required. In-Reply-To: <9C43D65E-D074-460E-A0B8-5B76890E0924@Malcolm.id.au> References: <9C43D65E-D074-460E-A0B8-5B76890E0924@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <45ed74050809120540i449508f8t7c406546944e71d3@mail.gmail.com> Accord - YES - on similar grounds as Jeremy submits. With best wishes, LDMF. Dr.Linda D. Misek-Falkoff On 9/11/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am going to vote YES despite my strong reservations about certain of > the rights posited here, on the basis that at least this will put the > topic of rights squarely on the agenda where the disagreements we have > can be debated openly and in depth. However if it would be possible > to substitute "Internet" for "internet", all the better. > > On 12/09/2008, at 5:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this >> statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. >> >> >> >> Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and >> the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and >> that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a >> rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The >> Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject >> which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet >> Bill of Rights. >> >> >> The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a >> discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights >> and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet >> >> >> >> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify >> and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the >> Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of >> human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized >> and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even >> within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to >> the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to >> which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. >> >> While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and >> political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the >> same time be further widening economic, social and political >> divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central >> theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and >> digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right >> to development" means. >> >> >> >> With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are >> increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes >> and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and >> citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges >> including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and >> services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control >> user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly >> sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional >> concepts of what rights users have. >> >> >> >> While property rights are of considerable importance, their >> applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to >> widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, >> trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging >> as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information >> society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest >> principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the >> concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can >> also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, >> and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment >> can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to >> protect copyrights. >> >> >> It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be >> meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a 'right to >> access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it >> (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of >> cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own >> language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural >> diversity. >> >> Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are >> being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share >> information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The >> right of the public to access government-produced information >> presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, >> where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra >> cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from >> citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of >> these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness >> theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right >> of association and the right to political participation may have >> important new implications in the internet age, >> >> >> We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and >> claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and >> enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes >> conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty >> about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual >> situation. The change in the technical methods of communication >> often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal >> categories. >> >> >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the >> IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no >> other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a >> non-binding context. >> >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >> technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's >> functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet >> becoming increasingly central to many social and political >> institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for >> IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights- >> based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. >> >> >> >> A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather >> rights provide a set of international standards and guiding >> principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is >> pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric >> information society, and a rights framework helps develop people- >> centric IG agenda and polices. >> >> >> It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take >> up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where >> workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will >> also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC >> fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards >> developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of >> the IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > > > -- > 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 > -- For further I.D.: Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. CONGO Education Committee Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. National Disability Party International Disability Caucus Persons with Pain International WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant. 2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council Invitee, Harvard and Yale Meetings on ICT rights / Development / Law. Member Assoc. Computing Machinery./ American Bar Assn, Trigeminal Neuralia Assn. U.N. Mental Health Committee SubComittee on ICT. 4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets Reearch Asst.G.A. Resolutions in Our Changing World. 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Sep 12 09:21:07 2008 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:21:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Like others I have some reservations about the rights text, but the issues can be revisited and worked through down the line and shouldn¹t prevent the caucus from providing needed inputs. I vote yes on both texts. Cheers, Bill On 9/11/08 11:51 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement > so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > > > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed > support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the > Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the > IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach > greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how > they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need > to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we > acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion > exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree > to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further > widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that > development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this > new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the > term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly > able to extend digital tentacles into people¹s homes and personal devices, in > manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products > thus face new challenges including the right > lse&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&str > ip=true#sdfootnote3sym> to know and completely Œown¹ the products and services > they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on > the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public > policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and > mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It > can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use > consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled > with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful > in relation to the Internet ­ for instance, a Œright to access the Internet > unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and > telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an > Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of > cultural diversity. > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or > as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to > access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner > in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at > little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public > information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. > All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness > theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of > association and the right to political participation may have important new > implications in the internet age, > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim ³rights² > it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also > recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each > other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights > claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet¹s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn¹t be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide > a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to > inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called > for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop > people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > > It is the Caucus¹ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions > will help the IGF work towards developing ŒRights and the Internet¹ as the > over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Center for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Fri Sep 12 09:44:53 2008 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:44:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0100701@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> I vote yes on both. Thanks, Lisa From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 12 September 2008 14:21 To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no Hi, Like others I have some reservations about the rights text, but the issues can be revisited and worked through down the line and shouldn't prevent the caucus from providing needed inputs. I vote yes on both texts. Cheers, Bill On 9/11/08 11:51 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Center for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Sep 12 09:56:33 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:56:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CA7511.3070703@rits.org.br> I agree with BD and vote yes as well. --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Like others I have some reservations about the rights text, but the issues > can be revisited and worked through down the line and shouldn¹t prevent the > caucus from providing needed inputs. I vote yes on both texts. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > On 9/11/08 11:51 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement >> so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. >> >> >> >> Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the >> Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the >> IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based >> discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed >> support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the >> Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. >> >> >> The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the >> IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an >> overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet >> >> >> >> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach >> greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how >> they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need >> to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we >> acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion >> exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree >> to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. >> >> While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political >> opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further >> widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that >> development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this >> new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the >> term "right to development" means. >> >> >> >> With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly >> able to extend digital tentacles into people¹s homes and personal devices, in >> manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products >> thus face new challenges including the right >> > lse&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&str >> ip=true#sdfootnote3sym> to know and completely Œown¹ the products and services >> they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on >> the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public >> policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. >> >> >> >> While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and >> mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political >> contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In >> fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic >> conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding >> the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims >> alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It >> can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use >> consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled >> with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. >> >> >> It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful >> in relation to the Internet ­ for instance, a Œright to access the Internet >> unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and >> telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an >> Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of >> cultural diversity. >> >> Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being >> framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or >> as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to >> access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner >> in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at >> little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public >> information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. >> All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness >> theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of >> association and the right to political participation may have important new >> implications in the internet age, >> >> >> We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim ³rights² >> it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also >> recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each >> other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights >> claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of >> communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply >> legal categories. >> >> >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to >> explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum >> where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. >> >> >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical >> principles and, increasingly, on the internet¹s functionality as a giant >> global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many >> social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual >> framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a >> rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. >> >> >> >> A rights-based IG shouldn¹t be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide >> a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to >> inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called >> for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop >> people-centric IG agenda and polices. >> >> >> It is the Caucus¹ view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this >> task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on >> rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure >> prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions >> will help the IGF work towards developing ŒRights and the Internet¹ as the >> over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance > Center for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From omar at kaminski.adv.br Fri Sep 12 10:07:10 2008 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:07:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required References: <82935D5C6998462FA5356BC4CD307DB4@IAN> Message-ID: <04CE7CC0D38043E5816DF69CBD119C74@home> Yes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:46 PM Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required Folks, I am about to post the final version of the rights statement. Time has run out, and we have to give a YES or NO response within 48 hours. I have had to try to steer a path between those who would feel uncomfortable with any statement that suggested exploring new and contentious rights, and those who would want to reject any statement that did not. Milton described the problem as insoluble - perhaps he is right. But with many of us feeling that this rights theme must be explored, I have had to try to come up with something acceptable to both parties. I believe the only way this could be done was to substantially change the emphasis of the statement. I have attempted to do this, and in the process may well have upset some. My intention here is quite clear - to get a statement acceptable to this list. To me it's important that we advance the theme and have this emphasis at Cairo. In the process we may all have to give a little. We may not agree with everything. I've changed the order of a few things to improve acceptability, emphasis, and expression. More than I normally would want to at this stage. But I believe that was necessary to get a consensus statement. Let me also say that this has been one of the most interesting discussions on this list for some time, with some very valid, expert, and differing opinions being advanced. My attempt at a statement acceptable to everyone follows in a separate message. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Sep 12 11:10:27 2008 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:10:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Running on Empty: the challenge of managing Internet addresses Message-ID: <20080912151027.GA17808@nic.fr> http://tprcweb.com/files/Lehr%20Vest%20Lear%20Internet%20Address%20TPRC%208_15_08.pdf Running on Empty: the challenge of managing Internet addresses William Lehr (MIT), Tom Vest (RIPE NCC) and Eliot Lear (Cisco) A bit technical, quite pro-market, but a detailed description of an Internet governance issue that will have more and more importance as the last IPv4 addresses are allocated. As Geoff Huston is fond of saying, "scarcity never brings the best out 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 hananeb at diplomacy.edu Fri Sep 12 11:07:08 2008 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:07:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required In-Reply-To: <04CE7CC0D38043E5816DF69CBD119C74@home> References: <82935D5C6998462FA5356BC4CD307DB4@IAN> <04CE7CC0D38043E5816DF69CBD119C74@home> Message-ID: A Yes for both. H. ----- Original Message ----- From: Omar Kaminski To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ian Peter Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required Yes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:46 PM Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required Folks, I am about to post the final version of the rights statement. Time has run out, and we have to give a YES or NO response within 48 hours. I have had to try to steer a path between those who would feel uncomfortable with any statement that suggested exploring new and contentious rights, and those who would want to reject any statement that did not. Milton described the problem as insoluble - perhaps he is right. But with many of us feeling that this rights theme must be explored, I have had to try to come up with something acceptable to both parties. I believe the only way this could be done was to substantially change the emphasis of the statement. I have attempted to do this, and in the process may well have upset some. My intention here is quite clear - to get a statement acceptable to this list. To me it's important that we advance the theme and have this emphasis at Cairo. In the process we may all have to give a little. We may not agree with everything. I've changed the order of a few things to improve acceptability, emphasis, and expression. More than I normally would want to at this stage. But I believe that was necessary to get a consensus statement. Let me also say that this has been one of the most interesting discussions on this list for some time, with some very valid, expert, and differing opinions being advanced. My attempt at a statement acceptable to everyone follows in a separate message. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yjpark21 at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 11:13:28 2008 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:13:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required In-Reply-To: <04CE7CC0D38043E5816DF69CBD119C74@home> References: <82935D5C6998462FA5356BC4CD307DB4@IAN> <04CE7CC0D38043E5816DF69CBD119C74@home> Message-ID: Vote YES. On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Omar Kaminski wrote: > Yes. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ian Peter > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:46 PM > *Subject:* [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no > vote required > > Folks, I am about to post the final version of the rights statement. Time > has run out, and we have to give a YES or NO response within 48 hours. > > > > I have had to try to steer a path between those who would feel > uncomfortable with any statement that suggested exploring new and > contentious rights, and those who would want to reject any statement that > did not. Milton described the problem as insoluble – perhaps he is right. > But with many of us feeling that this rights theme must be explored, I have > had to try to come up with something acceptable to both parties. > > > > I believe the only way this could be done was to substantially change the > emphasis of the statement. I have attempted to do this, and in the process > may well have upset some. My intention here is quite clear – to get a > statement acceptable to this list. To me it's important that we advance the > theme and have this emphasis at Cairo. > > > > In the process we may all have to give a little. We may not agree with > everything. > > > > I've changed the order of a few things to improve acceptability, emphasis, > and expression. More than I normally would want to at this stage. But I > believe that was necessary to get a consensus statement. > > > > Let me also say that this has been one of the most interesting discussions > on this list for some time, with some very valid, expert, and differing > opinions being advanced. > > > > My attempt at a statement acceptable to everyone follows in a separate > message. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yjpark21 at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 11:14:29 2008 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:14:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E804@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E804@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Vote YES. YJ On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I vote YES on the review statement > > > > > On 12/09/2008, at 5:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > > > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 > > > hours > > > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > > > > > > > Review of the IGF > > > > > > > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > > > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > > > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > > > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > > > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the > > > 'examining' or > > > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments > on > > > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > > > > > > > > > Process of review > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > > > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > > > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to > > > lay > > > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also > be > > > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other > > > interested > > > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF > > > meetings. > > > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep > > > in > > > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > > > present, including constituencies in developing counties including > > > those > > > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > > > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > > > especially reached out to. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the > process > > > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > > > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency > that > > > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important > assessment. > > > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of > > > global > > > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > > > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > > > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership > with > > > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing > > > global > > > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > > > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > > > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > > > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > > > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans > > > another > > > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this > workshop > > > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going > > > forward'. > > > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > > > > > > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of > continuation > > > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should > > > continue > > > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that > > > are > > > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > > > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it > to > > > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be > > > sought. > > > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > > > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > > > participative and democratic. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder > processes > > > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is > > > heartening > > > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > > > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek > to > > > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the > > > fear of > > > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, > IGF > > > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > > > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. > > > IGC > > > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > > > > > > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > > > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have > an > > > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > > > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > > > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these > > > WGs as > > > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > > > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some > > > outsiders > > > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF > to > > > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > > > possibility of special interests influencing its working through > > > control > > > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > > > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > > > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be > > > used to > > > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and > > > social > > > groups. > > > > > > > > > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the > > > last > > > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > > > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > > > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot > of > > > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > > > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > > > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all > > > our > > > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 11:18:37 2008 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:18:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights statement - yes or no vote required In-Reply-To: <82935D5C6998462FA5356BC4CD307DB4@IAN> References: <82935D5C6998462FA5356BC4CD307DB4@IAN> Message-ID: YES Baudouin 2008/9/11 Ian Peter > Folks, I am about to post the final version of the rights statement. Time > has run out, and we have to give a YES or NO response within 48 hours. > > > > I have had to try to steer a path between those who would feel > uncomfortable with any statement that suggested exploring new and > contentious rights, and those who would want to reject any statement that > did not. Milton described the problem as insoluble – perhaps he is right. > But with many of us feeling that this rights theme must be explored, I have > had to try to come up with something acceptable to both parties. > > > > I believe the only way this could be done was to substantially change the > emphasis of the statement. I have attempted to do this, and in the process > may well have upset some. My intention here is quite clear – to get a > statement acceptable to this list. To me it's important that we advance the > theme and have this emphasis at Cairo. > > > > In the process we may all have to give a little. We may not agree with > everything. > > > > I've changed the order of a few things to improve acceptability, emphasis, > and expression. More than I normally would want to at this stage. But I > believe that was necessary to get a consensus statement. > > > > Let me also say that this has been one of the most interesting discussions > on this list for some time, with some very valid, expert, and differing > opinions being advanced. > > > > My attempt at a statement acceptable to everyone follows in a separate > message. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE Tél:+243998983491 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tvest at eyeconomics.com Fri Sep 12 11:27:50 2008 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:27:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Running on Empty: the challenge of managing Internet addresses In-Reply-To: <20080912151027.GA17808@nic.fr> References: <20080912151027.GA17808@nic.fr> Message-ID: <80F1454F-66D8-465D-8B9D-074AD3B00592@eyeconomics.com> On Sep 12, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > http://tprcweb.com/files/Lehr%20Vest%20Lear%20Internet%20Address%20TPRC%208_15_08.pdf > > Running on Empty: the challenge of managing Internet addresses > William Lehr (MIT), Tom Vest (RIPE NCC) and Eliot Lear (Cisco) > > A bit technical, quite pro-market, but a detailed description of an > Internet governance issue that will have more and more importance as > the last IPv4 addresses are allocated. As Geoff Huston is fond of > saying, "scarcity never brings the best out of people". Hi Stephane, The paper was a collaborative effort, one in which the co-authors belatedly discovered that they have strong and largely incompatible views. I think a close reading of the paper, with special attention given to the description of the potential risks of a market-based approach to managing IP addresses, might inspire a slightly different conclusion. In any case, I'm here (and Bill is as well, I believe) if anyone has questions or additional comments about the paper, or the issue more generally. Regards, Tom Vest ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 12 11:34:33 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:34:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CA8C09.7060102@panos-ao.org> I vote YES KL Ian Peter a écrit : > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > -- Ken Lohento Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 33 849 16 66 www.panos-ao.org www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://mediatic.panos-ao.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 klohento at panos-ao.org Fri Sep 12 11:50:28 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:50:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CA8FC4.50601@panos-ao.org> I vote YES... because the various right-based issues addressed in the text are according to me really consensus building, even though we may not all agree on describing some of them as "rights" or not, and even though we may also have difficulty to define the consequences of this right-based approach. I also hope that if adopted, this over-arching theme will not lead to too much political and partisan debates on one or two controversial issues which might derives us from the real development issues of IGF. Regards and thank for the good work and enriching debate KL Ian Peter a écrit : > > *Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline.* > > * * > > *Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt * > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and > the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and > that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a > rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus > has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was > sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse > at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the > Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > */A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet/* > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify > and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet > are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human > rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and > strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within > the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the > nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which > they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for > this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF > meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it > might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the > right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on > the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun > public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their > applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to > widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, > trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as > a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. > The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles > which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a > right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how > individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer > electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled > with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet -- for instance, a 'right to > access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar > to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural > expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, > could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are > being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share > information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The > right of the public to access government-produced information presents > itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where > information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. > Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens > in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these > rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme > area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of > association and the right to political participation may have > important new implications in the internet age, > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce > them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or > compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the > proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The > change in the technical methods of communication often undermines > pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the > IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other > global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a > non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for > IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that > can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to > recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, > and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and > polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take > up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where > workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also > hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully > expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards > developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the > IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > -- Ken Lohento Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 33 849 16 66 www.panos-ao.org www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://mediatic.panos-ao.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Fri Sep 12 12:06:57 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:06:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed timeline for the review of IGF Message-ID: <48CA93A1.7020306@panos-ao.org> A document posted on the IGF website regarding point 4 of the agenda of the consultation meeting - see http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/IGF.Timetable.03.09.2008.doc and directly enclosed here. I guess it's too late to comment it on the statement on the review of the IGF... KL *_IGF Timetable_* * * One of the major outcomes of the Tunis Phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a new forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue. The IGF was given a provisional mandate of five years, subject to review. Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda (TA) sets out the broad structure and timetable for this review: TA-76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. _Proposed timetable for the review process_ _ _ The ultimate decision on whether or not to renew the mandate of the IGF needs to be taken by the UN General Assembly, by the end of 2010, which is the fifth anniversary of the Tunis Phase of WSIS. If the mandate is not renewed, then the fifth IGF meeting, to be held in late 2010, would be the final one. If the mandate is renewed, then there would still be time to organize a sixth annual meeting of the IGF in late 2011. Working backwards from this deadline of year-end 2010, a possible timetable for the review process is set out below: * *16 September 2008*: IGF consultations on proposed architecture and timetable for the review. * *3-6 December 2008*: Third annual IGF meeting, Hyderabad, India. * *January 2009 - September 2009:* Start of broad-based consultations, with call for contributions on IGF Web site for review and comment. Three IGF open consultations in February, May and September. * *November or December 2009:* Fourth annual IGF meeting (Egypt): 'Formal consultations with Forum participants' on the future of the IGF. Outcome of consultations is transmitted to the UN Secretary-General. * *March 2010: Th*e UN Secretary-General submits his report on WSIS follow-up, including the IGF, and makes his recommendations to the UN membership on the future of the IGF. * *May 2010:* CSTD meeting reviews report of the UN Secretary-General and makes its recommendations on the future of the IGF to ECOSOC. * *July 2010:* ECOSOC reviews CSTD resolution and makes recommendations to the General Assembly.. * *November or December 2010:* Fifth^ annual IGF meeting. * *December 2010:* UN General Assembly considers ECOSOC recommendations and renews or revokes mandate of the IGF, as appropriate. _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________ -- Ken Lohento Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT) Programme Panos Institute West Africa 6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal +221 33 849 16 66 www.panos-ao.org www.cipaco.org www.euroafrica-ict.org http://mediatic.panos-ao.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Fri Sep 12 12:14:06 2008 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:14:06 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: May I express my support to both. Kind regards Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. September 2008 23:59 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours to meet the Secretariat's deadline. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. ________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Fri Sep 12 12:17:53 2008 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:17:53 +0700 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required Message-ID: <200809122317.54084.nhklein@gmx.net> Also YES on the IGF review. > > > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > > > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 > > > hours to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > > > > > > > Review of the IGF [snip] Norbert Klein Associate Open Institute Phnom Penh - Cambodia -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 12:21:48 2008 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:21:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd0809120921m1ca025cfr8a0eedc2c553915e@mail.gmail.com> YES Just correct a typo in : "IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard." It should read "to the IGF" I suppose. In that regard, we are organizing a workshop in Hyderabad on national and regional IGFs and welcome input and participation from IGC members on the experiences they are aware of or participate in. Best Bertrand On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From philippe_dam at yahoo.fr Fri Sep 12 12:25:03 2008 From: philippe_dam at yahoo.fr (Dam Philippe) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:25:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: <200809122317.54084.nhklein@gmx.net> Message-ID: <862880.75722.qm@web25704.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Also yes on both texts. Best, Ph --- En date de : Ven 12.9.08, Norbert Klein a écrit : De: Norbert Klein Objet: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Vendredi 12 Septembre 2008, 18h17 Also YES on the IGF review. > > > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > > > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 > > > hours to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > > > > > > > Review of the IGF [snip] Norbert Klein Associate Open Institute Phnom Penh - Cambodia -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 11 14:29:50 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:29:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Running on Empty: the challenge of managing References: <20080912151027.GA17808@nic.fr> Message-ID: <48C9639E.E954A01E@ix.netcom.com> Stephane and all, I must agree with Geoff here. The real problems here are that the reclaiming of unused IPv4 addresses, the lack luster interest in IPv6 partly due to it's inhearant security/privacy problems, and the years prior to 2000 when IP address space was handed out like party favors. Hence we are where we are, and IPv6 isn't going to solve the problem. Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > http://tprcweb.com/files/Lehr%20Vest%20Lear%20Internet%20Address%20TPRC%208_15_08.pdf > > Running on Empty: the challenge of managing Internet addresses > William Lehr (MIT), Tom Vest (RIPE NCC) and Eliot Lear (Cisco) > > A bit technical, quite pro-market, but a detailed description of an > Internet governance issue that will have more and more importance as > the last IPv4 addresses are allocated. As Geoff Huston is fond of > saying, "scarcity never brings the best out 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 12 13:00:54 2008 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <79973.77138.qm@web45209.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am going to vote YES --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 2:59 PM Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours to meet the Secretariat's deadline. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. ________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From renate.bloem at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 14:02:29 2008 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:02:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080912180239.07982700008E@mwinf2827.orange.fr> Also my yes on both texts Renate -------- Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org  Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: jeudi, 11. septembre 2008 23:59 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours to meet the Secretariat's deadline. Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. ________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From graciela at rits.org.br Fri Sep 12 17:47:42 2008 From: graciela at rits.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:47:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CAE37E.90702@rits.org.br> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Fri Sep 12 17:55:35 2008 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:55:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080912235535.14063fkmfy155f7k@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> I say YES, but some reservation: I don't think this statement is correctly hierarchazing the different rights. We agree, should I say, that right to access has something controversial with the property right, and that the WIPO position is biased by some "owners of data"! So let us start a new debate, out of time pressure ... and with some higher scientific basis. -- Jacques Berleur Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix 61, rue de Bruxelles B - 5000 NAMUR URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl Ian Peter a écrit : > Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement > so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. > > > > Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right > e&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno > te3sym> to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the > internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public > policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It > can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful > in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet > unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and > telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have > an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic > area of cultural diversity. > > > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right > of association and the right to political participation may have important > new implications in the internet age, > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. > We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with > each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that > WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework > helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this > task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on > rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > 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 valeriab at apc.org Fri Sep 12 18:11:54 2008 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:11:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response In-Reply-To: <48CAE37E.90702@rits.org.br> References: <48CAE37E.90702@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi all, My vote for YES for both statements too. Regards, Valeria 2008/9/12 Graciela Selaimen > Hi, > > I vote Yes to both statements. > > best, > Graciela Selaimen > Rits - Brasil > > Ian Peter escreveu: > > *Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this > statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline.* > > * * > > *Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt * > > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the > IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already > expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > > > > > The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > *A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet* > > > > One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are > defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > internet governance discussions. > > > > While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political > opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be > further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this > reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to > date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to > explore what the term "right to development" means. > > > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers > of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know > and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological > measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming > increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional > concepts of what rights users have. > > > > While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability > and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political > contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It > can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be > meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a 'right to access > the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to > electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a > right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important > IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. > > > > Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being > framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, > or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public > to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly > sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital > public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF > openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right > of association and the right to political participation may have important > new implications in the internet age, > > > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim > "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. > We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with > each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a > rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum > where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > > > A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights > provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that > WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework > helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. > > > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops > on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the > Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Fri Sep 12 18:13:52 2008 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:13:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080913001352.82405h2io3mltaww@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> I say YES to this staement on IGF Review. But I would insist that if we contemplate IGFs at national or regional levels, we must also admit that some "nations" or "regions" are not as well equipped as others. We must also reflect on the benefit of the current international support, to be sure that the minorities' rights are safeguarded. Thanks for your attention. -- Jacques Berleur Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix 61, rue de Bruxelles B - 5000 NAMUR URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl Ian Peter a écrit : > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hindenburgo at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 18:19:40 2008 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:19:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response In-Reply-To: <20080913001352.82405h2io3mltaww@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> References: <20080913001352.82405h2io3mltaww@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: <3ef75b780809121519l5de5a12dgeb8ddcc821f48e35@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I vote yes to adoption of statement. Regards and good work, Hindenburgo www.cibergeo.org/artigos 2008/9/12 Jacques Berleur : > I say YES to this staement on IGF Review. > But I would insist that if we contemplate IGFs at national or regional > levels, we must also admit that some "nations" or "regions" are not as well > equipped as others. We must also reflect on the benefit of the current > international support, to be sure that the minorities' rights are > safeguarded. > Thanks for your attention. > -- > Jacques Berleur > Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix > 61, rue de Bruxelles > B - 5000 NAMUR > URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl > > > > Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less >> controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours >> to meet the Secretariat's deadline. >> >> >> Review of the IGF >> >> >> The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the >> continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make >> recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two >> sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or >> review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on >> the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. >> >> >> >> Process of review >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.cibergeo.org/artigos ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From balbornoz at flacso.org.ec Fri Sep 12 18:39:35 2008 From: balbornoz at flacso.org.ec (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mar=EDa_Bel=E9n_Albornoz?=) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:39:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response In-Reply-To: References: <48CAE37E.90702@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <01b901c91528$7508dcc0$5f1a9640$@org.ec> Hello, My vote to both statements is YES. Best regards, Belén De: valeriabet at gmail.com [mailto:valeriabet at gmail.com] En nombre de Valeria Betancourt Enviado el: Viernes, 12 de Septiembre de 2008 17:12 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response Hi all, My vote for YES for both statements too. Regards, Valeria 2008/9/12 Graciela Selaimen Hi, I vote Yes to both statements. best, Graciela Selaimen Rits - Brasil Ian Peter escreveu: Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions. While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. 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 -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From francoise.massit at voxinternet.org Fri Sep 12 19:01:47 2008 From: francoise.massit at voxinternet.org (massit follea) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:01:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no In-Reply-To: <20080912235535.14063fkmfy155f7k@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> References: <20080912235535.14063fkmfy155f7k@webmail3.fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: <9DC72AD5-5B87-4386-B920-8B3FC5D015A5@voxinternet.org> I share Jacques's comments but I vote NO to the "Rights" text - sorry I couldn't have time for entering the long & interesting debate that led to that document Hope to be able to fully explain my views before Cairo meeting ... I vote YES to the "IGF review" text F. Massit-Folléa Vox Internet coordinator FMSH, Paris Le 12 sept. 08 à 23:55, Jacques Berleur a écrit : > I say YES, but some reservation: I don't think this statement is > correctly hierarchazing the different rights. We agree, should I > say, that right to access has something controversial with the > property right, and that the WIPO position is biased by some > "owners of data"! > So let us start a new debate, out of time pressure ... and with > some higher scientific basis. > -- > Jacques Berleur > Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix > 61, rue de Bruxelles > B - 5000 NAMUR > URL: http://info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl > > > > Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this >> statement >> so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline. >> >> >> >> Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights >> and the >> Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and >> that the >> IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based >> discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already >> expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to >> the MAG >> by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. >> >> >> >> >> >> The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a >> discourse at >> the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the >> Internet' an >> overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> >> >> A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet >> >> >> >> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to >> clarify and >> reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet >> are >> defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human >> rights, and >> which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. >> Within >> this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society >> caucus, >> differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and >> conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be >> emphasized in >> internet governance discussions. >> >> >> >> While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political >> opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same >> time be >> further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for >> this >> reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF >> meetings to >> date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be >> useful to >> explore what the term "right to development" means. >> >> >> >> With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are >> increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and >> personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. >> Consumers >> of digital products thus face new challenges including the right >> > docID=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&justBody=fals >> e&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#s >> dfootno >> te3sym> to know and completely 'own' the products and services >> they pay >> for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior >> on the >> internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun >> public >> policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. >> >> >> >> While property rights are of considerable importance, their >> applicability >> and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread >> political >> contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and >> patents. In >> fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio- >> economic >> conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues >> surrounding >> the public interest principles which underpin intellectual >> property claims >> alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the >> digital space It >> can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, >> test, and >> use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment >> can be >> reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect >> copyrights. >> >> >> >> It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be >> meaningful >> in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the >> Internet >> unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and >> telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right >> to have >> an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF >> thematic >> area of cultural diversity. >> >> >> >> Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, >> are being >> framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share >> information, >> or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of >> the public >> to access government-produced information presents itself in a >> wholly new >> manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly >> sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding >> digital >> public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a >> form of >> censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included >> in the IGF >> openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as >> the right >> of association and the right to political participation may have >> important >> new implications in the internet age, >> >> >> >> We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim >> "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and >> enforce them. >> We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or >> compete with >> each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper >> application of a >> rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical >> methods of >> communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how >> to apply >> legal categories. >> >> >> >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using >> the IGF to >> explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other >> global forum >> where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding >> context. >> >> >> >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >> technical >> principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a >> giant >> global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly >> central to many >> social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and >> conceptual >> framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus >> that a >> rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. >> >> >> >> A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights >> provide a set of international standards and guiding principles >> that can >> help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to >> recollect that >> WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights >> framework >> helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices. >> >> >> >> It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to >> take up this >> task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where >> workshops on >> rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully >> figure >> prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these >> discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the >> Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cosmatos at tiscali.it Fri Sep 12 20:01:22 2008 From: cosmatos at tiscali.it (cosmatos at tiscali.it) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - IGF Review Message-ID: <1514473.6041221264082901.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> I agree with both documents. Yes! Yes! carlo ------------------------ Carlo N. Cosmatos ISOC Italy staff e-mail: carlo.cosmatos at isoc.it web: http://www.isoc.it ------------------------ Con Tiscali Adsl 8 Mega navighi SENZA LIMITI e GRATIS PER I PRIMI TRE MESI. In seguito paghi solo € 19,95 al mese. Attivala subito, l’offerta è valida fino al 18/09/2008! http://abbonati.tiscali.it/promo/adsl8mega/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Sat Sep 13 01:46:15 2008 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <475591.62440.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I Vote YES Shaila be as a well......sure and limitless.... but as time befits.....assume other forms ....      --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Valeria Betancourt wrote: From: Valeria Betancourt Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on rights theme - yes or no response To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 3:11 PM Hi all, My vote for YES for both statements too. Regards, Valeria 2008/9/12 Graciela Selaimen Hi, I vote Yes to both statements. best, Graciela Selaimen Rits - Brasil Ian Peter escreveu: Please respond within 48 hours with a YESor NO to adoption of this statement so it can be sent to the Secretariat before the deadline.   Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights.     The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt.   A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet    One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in internet governance discussions.   While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means.   With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have.   While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society.  The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights.   It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet – for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.    Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the internet age,   We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories.    These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the internet becoming  increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose.   A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices.   It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned.  These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt.         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 -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Sep 13 01:56:35 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:56:35 +1000 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights theme - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <1514473.6041221264082901.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> Folks, sorry to have to do this, but it has been pointed out to me that in the final text I left out an important paragraph which appears to be universally accepted as important, as below. "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. It was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. I suggest it be added before "Other important Internet policy areas" in the text. Please if you oppose this addition to the text which seems to be getting widespread support, say so clearly now. It was my omission and was not a controversial section in the discussions that preceded the final version as far as I can see. 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 anita at itforchange.net Sat Sep 13 03:49:12 2008 From: anita at itforchange.net (Anita Gurumurthy) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:19:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CB7078.8020908@itforchange.net> I vote yes to both statements. anita anita gurumurthy IT for Change www.ITforChange.net Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel:98455 46406 Ian Peter wrote: > Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less > controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48 hours > to meet the Secretariat's deadline. > > > Review of the IGF > > > The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum > participants, within five years of its creation, and to make > recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two > sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or > review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on > the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. > > > > Process of review > > > > As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be > centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These > consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay > out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be > necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested > stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. > In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in > mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at > present, including constituencies in developing counties including those > of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues > like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be > especially reached out to. > > > > If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process > of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not > advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that > offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. > The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global > public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political > significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy > institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with > one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global > institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of > perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. > > > > It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, > preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a > workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another > one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop > should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. > Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure > > > > On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation > of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue > beyond its first mandated period of five years. > > > > It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are > in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more > controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to > the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. > Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet > policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more > participative and democratic. > > > > The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes > at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening > to note that some such national and regional processes are already > taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to > establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of > governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF > should use global civil society groups and processes to guide > appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC > offers its assistance to the IGC in this regard. > > > > A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is > evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an > inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF > event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in > Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as > required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the > run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders > are expected to prepare for main sessions. > > > > As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to > have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any > possibility of special interests influencing its working through control > over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and > streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and > other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to > ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social > groups. > > > > We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last > few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions > where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very > different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of > the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. > However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better > resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our > expectations from this unique global institution. > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 03:59:37 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:59:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights theme - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> References: <1514473.6041221264082901.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> Message-ID: <45ed74050809130059ibacf9bdi4a7a10d2147d6d7c@mail.gmail.com> Dear Ian and All, Thanks for this update. It is SO important not to limit putative rights to a claimed right to (only) receive/decode (information) rather than as should be to be fully empowered/encoding participants in communication contexts. With best wishes, Linda.. On 9/13/08, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Folks, sorry to have to do this, but it has been pointed out to me that in > the final text I left out an important paragraph which appears to be > universally accepted as important, as below. > > > "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's > open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new > threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." > > It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. It > was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. > > I suggest it be added before "Other important Internet policy areas" in the > text. > > Please if you oppose this addition to the text which seems to be getting > widespread support, say so clearly now. It was my omission and was not a > controversial section in the discussions that preceded the final version as > far as I can see. > > 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 > -- For further I.D.: Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. CONGO Education Committee Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. National Disability Party International Disability Caucus Persons with Pain International WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant. 2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council Invitee, Harvard and Yale Meetings on ICT rights / Development / Law. Member Assoc. Computing Machinery./ American Bar Assn, Trigeminal Neuralia Assn. U.N. Mental Health Committee SubComittee on ICT. 4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets Reearch Asst.G.A. Resolutions in Our Changing World. 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 From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 13 06:59:12 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:59:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights theme - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> References: <1514473.6041221264082901.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E83B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Yes! > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's > open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new > threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." > > It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. It > was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 07:27:55 2008 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:27:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights theme - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E83B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <1514473.6041221264082901.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E83B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0809130427u1639a1f1v6dad2fcd6e9532c0@mail.gmail.com> yes On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Yes! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > > "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the > Internet's > > open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new > > threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." > > > > It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. > It > > was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ------------------------------------------------- "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910) ------------------------------------------------- Dr. Max Senges Stanford Post-Doc Visiting Scholar UOC Research Associate Freelance Consultant 98 Loyola Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025 US-Phone: (001) 650 714 9826 www.maxsenges.com www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 07:32:08 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:32:08 -0600 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights theme - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e0809130427u1639a1f1v6dad2fcd6e9532c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <1514473.6041221264082901.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E83B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4d976d8e0809130427u1639a1f1v6dad2fcd6e9532c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes. On 9/13/08, Max Senges wrote: > yes > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Yes! >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> >> > "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the >> Internet's >> > open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new >> > threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." >> > >> > It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. >> It >> > was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong > man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit > belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the > dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short > again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and > spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with > those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." > - THEODORE ROOSEVELT > (Paris Sorbonne,1910) > > ------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Max Senges > Stanford Post-Doc Visiting Scholar > UOC Research Associate > Freelance Consultant > > 98 Loyola Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025 > > US-Phone: (001) 650 714 9826 > > www.maxsenges.com > www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 12 09:51:01 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:51:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Regarding Rights: Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Spam Law Message-ID: <48CA73C5.4BEDA322@ix.netcom.com> All, Personally only, I found this ruling both odd and extraordinary! As food for thought, see: "The Washington Post is reporting that the Virginia Supreme Court has http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091201211.html?hpid=topnews struck down the anti-spam law that was used to convict spammer Jeremy James, on the grounds that the ability to be anonymous was more important than the problem of spam. Strangely, the same court only a few months ago upheld the law. 'The court noted that "were the 'Federalist Papers' just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the [current Virginia] statute." The court suggested that the law does not limit its restrictions on spam to commercial or fraudulent e-mail, or to unprotected speech such as pornography or defamation. And when the state suggested that the court merely tailor a restriction to the law within its opinion, the court declined.'" Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 12 10:07:20 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:07:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops Message-ID: <48CA7798.95A7806C@ix.netcom.com> All, Regarding rights, ( This one really bothers me ) see: "The Senate Judiciary Committee has http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080911-committee-amends-approves-enormous-gift-to-big-content.html approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should go rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent people will be harmed by this law." My notes: Seems to me that sense the RIAA and the MPAA have been loosing cases all of the country, as have their counterparts in other countries, this legislation was borne from lobbying of those IP organizations and their members for extraordinary Rights, in that they cannot or will not protect their own IP rights in accordance with current law and available technology. Comments, thoughts, suggestions? Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Sat Sep 13 09:14:51 2008 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:44:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights In-Reply-To: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> References: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> Message-ID: <48CBBCCB.3050809@itforchange.net> Yes to both statements.... Thanks Ian, regards Guru Ian Peter wrote: > Folks, sorry to have to do this, but it has been pointed out to me that in > the final text I left out an important paragraph which appears to be > universally accepted as important, as below. > > > "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's > open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new > threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." > > It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. It > was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. > > I suggest it be added before "Other important Internet policy areas" in the > text. > > Please if you oppose this addition to the text which seems to be getting > widespread support, say so clearly now. It was my omission and was not a > controversial section in the discussions that preceded the final version as > far as I can see. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ahmed.swapan at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 09:40:33 2008 From: ahmed.swapan at gmail.com (Ahmed Swapan Mahmud) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:40:33 +0600 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights In-Reply-To: <48CBBCCB.3050809@itforchange.net> References: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> <48CBBCCB.3050809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes on both text. Yes again. Ahmed Swapan VOICE On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Guru wrote: > Yes to both statements.... > > Thanks Ian, > > regards > Guru > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Folks, sorry to have to do this, but it has been pointed out to me that in >> the final text I left out an important paragraph which appears to be >> universally accepted as important, as below. >> >> >> "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's >> open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new >> threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." >> >> It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. It >> was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. >> >> I suggest it be added before "Other important Internet policy areas" in >> the >> text. >> >> Please if you oppose this addition to the text which seems to be getting >> widespread support, say so clearly now. It was my omission and was not a >> controversial section in the discussions that preceded the final version >> as >> far as I can see. >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Ahmed Swapan Mahmud Executive Director, VOICE House 67, Block-Ka Pisciculture Housing Society Shyamoli, Dhaka 1207 Bangladesh Tel : +88-02-8158688 Cell-phone : +88-01711-881919 Alternate e-mail : exchange.voice at gmail.com Website : www.voicebd.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Sat Sep 13 11:00:41 2008 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:00:41 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights In-Reply-To: References: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> <48CBBCCB.3050809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This is important. Thanks for correction. Wolfgang Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 Von: Ahmed Swapan Mahmud [mailto:ahmed.swapan at gmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 13. September 2008 15:41 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru Cc: Ian Peter Betreff: Re: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights Yes on both text. Yes again. Ahmed Swapan VOICE On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Guru wrote: Yes to both statements.... Thanks Ian, regards Guru Ian Peter wrote: Folks, sorry to have to do this, but it has been pointed out to me that in the final text I left out an important paragraph which appears to be universally accepted as important, as below. "The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. It was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. I suggest it be added before "Other important Internet policy areas" in the text. Please if you oppose this addition to the text which seems to be getting widespread support, say so clearly now. It was my omission and was not a controversial section in the discussions that preceded the final version as far as I can see. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Ahmed Swapan Mahmud Executive Director, VOICE House 67, Block-Ka Pisciculture Housing Society Shyamoli, Dhaka 1207 Bangladesh Tel : +88-02-8158688 Cell-phone : +88-01711-881919 Alternate e-mail : exchange.voice at gmail.com Website : www.voicebd.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Sat Sep 13 12:58:32 2008 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:58:32 +0600 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on In-Reply-To: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> References: <1514473.6041221264082901.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> Message-ID: <20080913165314.71B556781E@smtp1.electricembers.net> Yes. At 11:56 AM 9/13/2008, Ian Peter wrote: >Folks, sorry to have to do this, but it has been pointed out to me that in >the final text I left out an important paragraph which appears to be >universally accepted as important, as below. > > >"The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's >open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new >threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology." > >It's important to add this, I think, and I apologise for its omission. It >was discussed and accepted widely in preparation of this document. > >I suggest it be added before "Other important Internet policy areas" in the >text. > >Please if you oppose this addition to the text which seems to be getting >widespread support, say so clearly now. It was my omission and was not a >controversial section in the discussions that preceded the final version as >far as I can see. > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Sep 13 14:34:00 2008 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:34:00 +0700 Subject: [governance] Last minute addition?? Consensus call on rights theme - IGF Review In-Reply-To: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> References: <7E974EBE9C944ED39DBCA9D3429238F9@IAN> Message-ID: <200809140134.00946.nhklein@gmx.net> YES. Norbert = On Saturday, 13 September 2008 12:56:35 Ian Peter wrote: > Folks, sorry to have to do this, but it has been pointed out to me that in > the final text I left out an important paragraph which appears to be > universally accepted as important, as below. [snip] -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Sep 13 15:47:32 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:47:32 +1000 Subject: [governance] Final Text on Rights - now sent to IGF Secretariat Message-ID: <4800171DB6CD4432B585B06E700BACCA@IAN> Thanks to everyone who participated, I have now forwarded the text below to the IGF Secretariat for inclusion in the synthesis paper Ian Peter Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the Internet One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in Internet governance discussions. While the Internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term "right to development" means. With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including the right to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the Internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have. While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural expression, and a right to have an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. The right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the Internet's open and participatory nature, and both new opportunities for, and new threats to, this right have emerged in the digital ecology. Other important Internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political participation may have important new implications in the Internet age, We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework helps develop people-centric IG agenda and policies. It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Sep 13 15:49:19 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:49:19 +1000 Subject: [governance] final text on IGF Review Message-ID: Thanks to everyone who participated - I have now forwarded the text below to IGF for inclusion in the synthesis paper. Ian Peter Review of the IGF The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of the IGF. Process of review As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes, apart from informal ones. It will also be necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF meetings. In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached out to. If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of review, the process should be open and transparent. It is not advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good way to ensure it. It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest, preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'. Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond its first mandated period of five years. It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and democratic. The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard. A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social groups. We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this unique global institution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Sat Sep 13 16:39:07 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:39:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] For a real impact of IGF in least developed countries Message-ID: <48CC24EB.60502@panos-ao.org> For your information - KL --- The African civil society for the information society (ACSIS) submitted a contribution to IGF within the framework of the preparation of the India meeting. The contribution targets the draft programme in discussion but also general issues around IGF. Some of its comments are directed to stakeholders in general (including Africans) The title of the contribution in English is: "For a real impact of IGF in least developed countries" It includes, among other, recommendations or concerns such as: - IGF's impact in Africa is hardly seen so far - the need to decisively make efforts to make the IGF useful to developing countries - establishing permanent thematic working groups, provide supplementary resources to the secretariat, find more resources for participation, etc. - the review of IGF should give opportunity to analyze IGF impacts on LDCs and a multilingual approach should be followed for this review in order to include all stakeholders - the need to consolidate and give more visibility to 'best practice fora' that potentially favor the reinforcement of capacities of the global South. - a proposal to publish results of the IGF (in print and or electronic documents : manuel/collection of best practices, etc.) with particular attention to results useful to DCs - regarding theme 2 of the draft programme, the replacement of « Promoting cybersecurity, and Trust" by « Promoting cybersecurity, and Freedom of expression on the Internet" to also give more visibility to human rights issues along with security issues - the need to have important information in UN languages on the website - a appeal should be made to LDCs's governments in the final documents produced at Hyderabad, for them to initiate/strengthen/support national IG(F) processes for the consolidation of IG for Development in those countries - the need to strengthen remote participation mechanisms - the need to discuss norms and standards in India - an appeal to African stakeholders to better contribute within the framework of the IGF to the promotion and consolidations of the IG(F) on the continent - a proposal of a meeting of CS on IGF prior to Egypt 2009 to discuss IGF role and impact. etc. The document is in French. KL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pour un r?el impact du FGI_Contribution ACSIS au FGI.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 164372 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 13 18:03:19 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:33:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement for open consultation In-Reply-To: <20080909112311.2C3D7E1F3C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20080913220330.EED55A6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi All Some members of IGC will be participating in the open consultations on the 16th. As has been done customarily, we will seek to make spoken interventions on the behalf of the IGC. Please see my email below regarding this. By tomorrow I will put out some text about the proposed issues below, and insert it into the written input we have already made for these consultations This is different from the two inputs we just now finalized for the synthesis paper. Please see http://igf.wgig.org/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGC%27s%20input%20for%20IGF%27s% 20Sept%20consultations.pdf for this input to the consultations. The new text proposed to be added to this will be short and straight-forward, as is more or less already mentioned in my email below. One thing on the agenda is the nature and role of dynamic coalitions. This is important for civil society. Some of us may have some views on it. If so, please share them in the next 48 hours. If we see consensus or rough consensus of views we will present those on IGC's behalf. Even otherwise, members attending the consultations can convey different viewpoints of IGC members on this and other issues to the MAG. I will also try to extract text from existing statements of IGC on this and other issues. (I am traveling at the moment, and can only try this tomorrow.) We may also take some parts of the adopted inputs for the synthesis paper and make statements as per the context. Comments on the above issues will be most appreciated. Parminder _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC statement for open consultation Hi All A few of IGC members will be at the open consultation of MAG on the 16th. Those who will attend may want to let the group know. We can also plan to meet at lunch on the 16th to discuss various issues. Open consultations are occasions for spoken interventions, and we have almost always made one or more on the behalf of the IGC. We have a written contribution submitted last month as an input to the synthesis paper for this consultation. (http://igf.wgig.org/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGC%27s%20input%20for%20IGF%27s %20Sept%20consultations.pdf ). This statement can for the basis of the spoken intervention. I understand that apart from the program of Hyderabad IGF, which will be main agenda (pl see http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper.05.06.2008.pdf ) , two other agenda items for the consultations are of reviewing the role of dynamic coalitions and their relationship with the IGF, and the process of review of the IGF. 1. IGF Hyderabad program - We mentioned in the written intervention that the process of organizing main workshops should be clarified. We can re-state this point. The nature of debate sessions is not clear at all. We should ask for clarity about what these sessions will look like, and who will organize them. One IGC member has suggested to me that we should ask MAG to invite written questions and comments for the debates session, and these questions should inform the debate. 2. Dynamic coalition - Please let me know what kind of issues IGC members want raised in this context. 3. IGF review - Our above referred statement mentions a few points regarding the IGF review. Some other points are there in the proposed input for the synthesis paper. If this input is adopted by the IGC, we can use some of these points. Any other points? A member has suggested to me that we make the point that MAG renewal should happen in time every year, for MAG to be able to do its work properly, and for new MAG members to make travel arrangement. Travel support should also be provided to CS MAG members, and the criteria of it made known. The member also suggested that special advisors to the MAG Chair should be rotated and more representation given to civil society. If any member can volunteer to pull together a draft statement out of these and/ or other points that may get contributed, it will be greatly appreciated. We have till 13th to finalize the draft before putting it to consensus process. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Sep 14 05:15:30 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:15:30 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] IGC statement for open consultation References: <20080913220330.EED55A6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426284@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder One thing on the agenda is the nature and role of dynamic coalitions. This is important for civil society. Some of us may have some views on it. If so, please share them in the next 48 hours. If we see consensus or rough consensus of views we will present those on IGC's behalf. Even otherwise, members attending the consultations can convey different viewpoints of IGC members on this and other issues to the MAG. Wolfgang: The Dynamic Coaliations (IGF-DC) are real innovations in international policy making. The big difference to "Working Groups" we know from the UN is the open multistakeholder composition, the bottom up approach and the flexible procedures. One of the key procedureal discussion point is now, as I can see it, should we formalize IGF-DCs or not? I think it is too early to push the IGF-DCs into a formal procedure. We have too less experiences and best practices so far. We need a little bit patience and have to wait how the bottom up discussion works and which outcomes are produced. For the moment the only thing I would propose is to define a set of criteria under which a group can be call itself an IGF-DC. Openess, multistakeholder, bottom up, transparent, related to the WSIS process could be some of them. With regard to "outcomes" I would not recommend to follow the established procedures from international negotations, that is to have at the end recommendations, resolutions, declarations or legally binding conventions. I would prefer to invent something new which could be called "messages", "opinions" or "signals". Such messages, opinions or signals could be .- like RFCs - emerge via a bottom up discussion process and be fixed when something like "rough consensus" becomes visible. If if there is no rough consensus but a 50:50 constellation you could send two conflicting "signals" to the world, bringing light into the argument of the conflicting parties. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 13:34:21 2008 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:34:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards Message-ID: <48CD4B1D.2000200@gmail.com> Does the IGC want to take a position on this, provide comments? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=nl.e703 Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 13 21:23:18 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:23:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards References: <48CD4B1D.2000200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CC6786.BC8642FE@ix.netcom.com> Sylvia and all, I can't and will suppose that I can speak for the IGC, but as spokesman for for INEGroup members, I can say that we strongly oppose this secret proposal by the ITU. This attitude and idea by some member of the ITU is not new by any means. Such has been a growing cancer within the ITU for a number of years. Further in the US, the first amendment fully recognizes and protects anonymous speach and expression. Yet there are some in our congress and senate that non publically oppose keeping that recognition and protection under the guize of promoting Constructionist judges as nominees to the Supreme Court bench, and various questionable legislation such as the Patriot act and the recent FISA "Compermise" legislation. Sylvia Caras wrote: > Does the IGC want to take a position on this, provide comments? > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=nl.e703 > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 20:32:39 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:32:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops In-Reply-To: <48CA7798.95A7806C@ix.netcom.com> References: <48CA7798.95A7806C@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050809141732o7131f2d7o742ff7485751d09b@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for this early heads-up. We should scamper over on the link and look for standards of putative evidence triggering whatever takeovers of computers are contemplated. Among other issues of course. Best wishes, Linda M F. On 9/12/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > All, > > Regarding rights, ( This one really bothers me ) see: > > "The Senate Judiciary Committee has > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080911-committee-amends-approves-enormous-gift-to-big-content.html > > approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights > Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would > take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using > civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in > infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as > servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and > these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best > the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used > for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should > go > rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill > is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for > > seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign > copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent > people will be harmed by this law." > > My notes: Seems to me that sense the RIAA and the MPAA have > been loosing cases all of the country, as have their counterparts in > other countries, this legislation was borne from lobbying of those > IP organizations and their members for extraordinary Rights, in that > they cannot or will not protect their own IP rights in accordance > with current law and available technology. > > Comments, thoughts, suggestions? > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Individual Email. For further I.D. (ref./only) Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. CONGO Education Committee Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. ... 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 00:07:15 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:07:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops References: <48CA7798.95A7806C@ix.netcom.com> <45ed74050809141732o7131f2d7o742ff7485751d09b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CC8DF3.C05E9DF@ix.netcom.com> Linda and all, Good thinking! Of course I am no fan of the RIAA or for that matter their bastard step child, the dreadful MPAA, and they are well aware of it! And yet ICANN's indirect funding largely comes from paid lobbyist of these two disgraceful organizations, indirectly. They are the modern day equivalents of the Sheriff of Sherwood forest and his sleazy henchmen, IMO along with their ICANN allies, the sleazy IPC. Yet I do fully understand that they have ligitimate membership protection interests to attend to, of which I, nor any of our members would hope the IGC would have any problem with. It is the manner in which they go about exercising those duties and interests that I, and our members have significant differences with, this political maneuver not withstanding. It is difficult for me to understand how the Judiciary committee could have approved such legislation for full consideration. Perhaps it is because their PAC's and political campaigns are receiving copious donations for their re-election bids from these organizations? So much for principals, and years/decades of modern jurist prudence, if so, eh? >:( To borrow and slightly modify a phrase: "Cry havoc, let loose the dogs of political war!" ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com wrote: > Dear Jeffrey, > > Thanks for this early heads-up. > > We should scamper over on the link and look for standards of putative > evidence triggering whatever takeovers of computers are contemplated. > Among other issues of course. > > Best wishes, Linda M F. > > On 9/12/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > All, > > > > Regarding rights, ( This one really bothers me ) see: > > > > "The Senate Judiciary Committee has > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080911-committee-amends-approves-enormous-gift-to-big-content.html > > > > approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights > > Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would > > take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using > > civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in > > infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as > > servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and > > these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best > > the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used > > for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should > > go > > rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill > > is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for > > > > seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign > > copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent > > people will be harmed by this law." > > > > My notes: Seems to me that sense the RIAA and the MPAA have > > been loosing cases all of the country, as have their counterparts in > > other countries, this legislation was borne from lobbying of those > > IP organizations and their members for extraordinary Rights, in that > > they cannot or will not protect their own IP rights in accordance > > with current law and available technology. > > > > Comments, thoughts, suggestions? > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > Individual Email. > For further I.D. (ref./only) > Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. > CONGO Education Committee > Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. > ... > Other Affiliations on Request. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Sep 15 00:24:22 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:24:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards References: <48CD4B1D.2000200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D501B@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Sylvia, >From what I gather reading between the lines of the exchanges on this topic on Farber's IP list, the most inflammatory language re the political justification for traceback was lifted from an unnamed consultants' 'private' (ironic claim, given the work effort : ) email message, and is not included in an official ITU doc. So I'd caution the caucus to wait a bit until the dust settles on what exactly is being said by whom here before issuing a statement, but secondly this does point to reasons why ITU specs may effect Internet governance in significant ways, as some of us have been saying all along. Though to be realistic maybe half the standard specs developed don't get implemented nor have the reach/impact hoped for/feared, so this could all come to nothing. But it is a step along the way toward a more secure, though possibly less private net. Which can be good, and bad. Lee -----Original Message----- From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com] Sent: Sun 9/14/2008 1:34 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards Does the IGC want to take a position on this, provide comments? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=nl.e703 Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 02:04:57 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:04:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards In-Reply-To: <48CD4B1D.2000200@gmail.com> References: <48CD4B1D.2000200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050809142304wf30091ew17943f1047b44623@mail.gmail.com> Hi Sylvia, and from this desk - very important it seems. Trace-backs and retroactive data-mining forays (procedures and processes) seem inevitably to lead to the not tivial substantive chores of "content analysis" among other things, and there are huge issues of authentification and interpretation let alone 'fall out repercussions and take aways'. Hope the discussion continues with high calorie standing. :) Linda. On 9/14/08, Sylvia Caras wrote: > Does the IGC want to take a position on this, provide comments? > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=nl.e703 > > > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Individual Email. For further I.D. (ref./only) Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. CONGO Education Committee Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. National Disability Party International Disability Caucus Persons with Pain International WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant. 2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council Invitee, Harvard and Yale Meetings on ICT rights / Development / Law. Member Assoc. Computing Machinery./ American Bar Assn, Trigeminal Neuralia Assn. U.N. Mental Health Committee SubComittee on ICT. 4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets Reearch Asst.G.A. Resolutions in Our Changing World. 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 From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 02:09:09 2008 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:09:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops In-Reply-To: <48CC8DF3.C05E9DF@ix.netcom.com> References: <48CA7798.95A7806C@ix.netcom.com> <45ed74050809141732o7131f2d7o742ff7485751d09b@mail.gmail.com> <48CC8DF3.C05E9DF@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050809142309r541305bbj8fc94b2d460dd058@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeffrey and All, [longish, w/current gmail spellcheck suspended].]. Thanks for the further comments, and here is a pro tem reflection upon them: This is such a compelling topic; guide us further. I make no claim, and even assert 'minus current comprehension' of the current IP field in particular, and know there are experts here we may hear from with delight and instructiveness. But about balancing or at least accommodating diverse interests, I do feel passionately, and express concern that moves to prevent or remedy apparent 'intrusiveness' by one entity upon another's turf must be guarded against creating other and even more serious hence unacceptable intrusions in the process. Here, where and when contemplated 'protections' are said to follow entry and seizure of property (and perhaps especially in the name of protecting property albeit other property) one might suggest that much offended would be 'the right to be left alone,' and so far following the link (more info please!) one sees a plausibly noble effort toward protections for records seized, but plausibly only after the bridge has been breached ("The court shall enter an appropriate protective order with respect to discovery by the applicant of any records that have been seized.") Without presuming to discuss the recording industry's interest in such seizures, and in the context e.g. of say U.S. Constitution protections regarding search and seizure, I was linked in this inquiry to (IP Bill) HR 4279 and hence to section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug 2 Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 – 21, 3 U.S.C. 853 (ldmf-note: again, this is just jointly a first sortie; if you wish to provide some other links that will be great). Et voila! One expected 'probable cause' to be the stated standard, and here 'tiz and as usual - who are the deciders and what are the metrics - that is a real meaty question. "(f) Warrant of seizure The Government may request the issuance of a warrant authorizing the seizure of property subject to forfeiture under this section in the same manner as provided for a search warrant. If the court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the property to be seized would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture and that an order under subsection (e) of this section may not be sufficient to assure the availability of the property for forfeiture, the court shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property." So - If you have time and interest, your thoughts on the above will be interesting to read and react to. I don't say this is all cut and dried' or these initial notes at all dispositive even on current musings, and would like in the future to discuss the matters of multistakeholder interests viewed in plurality (ref. my "Respectful Interfaces" Programme in the CCC/UN – Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N. (any faults herein are my own of course and not representative of an organization). But for now it would be helpful just to establish whether 'probable cause' is indeed as glimpsed above the standard, suggesting something is more likely than not and beyond a 'reasonable suspicion' standard but short of 'clear and convincing' evidence (or cognates in different cultural contexts)" 'Cuz before they get to the machine they have to get into the building. one supposes. . And a slant-reference: When I spoke personally with the Robert Morris Judge decades back (my recall is that) he said he wished he hadn't gotten the "thorny" case & most pointedly, have to consider the then rather or extremely novel matter criminal (but if still around, his Honor might dispute me on this recollection). And, facially, has a "right to." With best wishes, Linda. On 9/14/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Linda and all, > > Good thinking! > > Of course I am no fan of the RIAA or for that matter their > bastard step child, the dreadful MPAA, and they are well > aware of it! And yet ICANN's indirect funding largely comes > from paid lobbyist of these two disgraceful organizations, indirectly. > They are the modern day equivalents of the Sheriff of Sherwood > forest and his sleazy henchmen, IMO along with their ICANN > allies, the sleazy IPC. Yet I do fully understand that they have > ligitimate membership protection interests to attend to, of which > I, nor any of our members would hope the IGC would have > any problem with. It is the manner in which they go about exercising > those duties and interests that I, and our members have significant > differences with, this political maneuver not withstanding. > > It is difficult for me to understand how the Judiciary committee > could have approved such legislation for full consideration. Perhaps > it is because their PAC's and political campaigns are receiving > copious donations for their re-election bids from these organizations? > So much for principals, and years/decades of modern jurist prudence, > if so, eh? >:( > > To borrow and slightly modify a phrase: "Cry havoc, let loose > the dogs of political war!" > > ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com wrote: > >> Dear Jeffrey, >> >> Thanks for this early heads-up. >> >> We should scamper over on the link and look for standards of putative >> evidence triggering whatever takeovers of computers are contemplated. >> Among other issues of course. >> >> Best wishes, Linda M F. >> >> On 9/12/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > Regarding rights, ( This one really bothers me ) see: >> > >> > "The Senate Judiciary Committee has >> > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080911-committee-amends-approves-enormous-gift-to-big-content.html >> > >> > approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights >> > Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would >> > take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using >> > civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in >> > infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as >> > servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and >> > these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best >> > the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used >> > for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should >> > go >> > rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill >> > is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for >> > >> > seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign >> > copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent >> > people will be harmed by this law." >> > >> > My notes: Seems to me that sense the RIAA and the MPAA have >> > been loosing cases all of the country, as have their counterparts in >> > other countries, this legislation was borne from lobbying of those >> > IP organizations and their members for extraordinary Rights, in that >> > they cannot or will not protect their own IP rights in accordance >> > with current law and available technology. >> > >> > Comments, thoughts, suggestions? >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) >> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - >> > Abraham Lincoln >> > >> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is >> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt >> > >> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; >> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by >> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." >> > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] >> > =============================================================== >> > Updated 1/26/04 >> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. >> > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. >> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail >> > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com >> > My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >> -- >> Individual Email. >> For further I.D. (ref./only) >> Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. >> CONGO Education Committee >> Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. >> ... >> Other Affiliations on Request. > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 04:15:29 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:15:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform Message-ID: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> All, and especially Vint, I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, or do, and could care less... See: A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html really as good as it sounds. We discussed http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 their announcement a few days ago. CNet's Chris Soghoian takes a closer look: "While the company hasn't said how it de-identifies the cookies, it has revealed in public statements that its IP anonymization technique consists of chopping off the last 8 bits of a user's IP address. As an example, an IP address of a home user could be 173.192.103.121. After 18 months, Google chops this down to 173.192.103.XXX. Since each octet (the numbers between each period of an IP) can contain values from 1-255, Google's anonymization technique allows a user, at most, to hide among 254 other computers. ... Google has now revealed that it will change "some" of the bits of the IP address after 9 months, but less than the eight bits that it masks after the full 18 months. Thus, instead of Google's customers being able to hide among 254 other Internet users, perhaps they'll be able to hide among 64, or 127 other possible IP addresses. By itself, this is a laughable level of anonymity. However, it gets worse." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 04:37:46 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:37:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards References: <48CD4B1D.2000200@gmail.com> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D501B@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48CCCD59.2D8CBD58@ix.netcom.com> Lee and all, Your may be right that this all may be more smoke then fire, but given the ITU's history that I know of, I seriously doubt it. Secondly there can never be security without privacy, so I firmly disagree with you on that part of your remarks below. Again, to reference Ben Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A truly timeless ideal, and one that was, and I hope remains, a cornerstone of our Republic. It is certainly one that many Americans and also peoples of other nations have fought, bled, and many died for. And one that I myself bled and personally known and watched in sadness and horror, die horribly, but proudly for. So with those memories and experiences, I for one shall never ever yield! Sorry Lee, but I must take old Ben's opinion, my experiences, on this issue before yours. Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sylvia, > > From what I gather reading between the lines of the exchanges on this > topic on Farber's IP list, the most inflammatory language re the > political justification for traceback was lifted from an unnamed > consultants' 'private' (ironic claim, given the work effort : ) email > message, and is not included in an official ITU doc. > > So I'd caution the caucus to wait a bit until the dust settles on what > exactly is being said by whom here before issuing a statement, but > secondly this does point to reasons why ITU specs may effect Internet > governance in significant ways, as some of us have been saying all > along. > > Though to be realistic maybe half the standard specs developed don't > get implemented nor have the reach/impact hoped for/feared, so this > could all come to nothing. But it is a step along the way toward a > more secure, though possibly less private net. Which can be good, and > bad. > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:Sylvia..Caras at gmail.com] > Sent: Sun 9/14/2008 1:34 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards > > Does the IGC want to take a position on this, provide comments? > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=nl.e703 > > > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Semper Fi, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 03:06:00 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:06:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform In-Reply-To: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: cc list trimmed. On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > All, and especially Vint, > > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, > > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any standing to comment on their practices? > > Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, > as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by > having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to that company and/or NOT USE those services. > > and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members > much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many > obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives > should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, > or do, and could care less... If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that they are full aware. The facts of the story you cite below leads me to think they do care. > > See: > A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize > IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html > really as good as it sounds. We discussed > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in the developing world than any other I can think of. It's certainly the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org support to SMEs, etc. This is just the latest example: http://www.o3 bnetworks.com We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 03:44:24 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:44:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform In-Reply-To: References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70809150044w32ee4590l5a62fe3a594c8fa2@mail.gmail.com> I would be a bit skeptical however regarding Google's practices in developing countries regarding privacy as most of the developing countries have no policies in place on privacy and this is a core threat to the privacy of their citizens. As I was once in an Information Security association meeting in Pakistan where the Google country consultant and the federal investigation authority chief were present and during that meeting some discussions took place where the investigation authority's chief requested the Google rep to request Google to share the information they required for solving cases related to cyber crime. Now a core issue here is that are there any generally accepted cyber crime and priacy practices and procedures that countries may endourse and practice at a global level and even a company like Google may have to abide to those generally accepted practices in the developing world countries. I have been very skeptical about some of the privacy discussions being oriented towards the western world/developed world forgetting that the developing world also constitutes a major portion of the internet user population and that their privacy also holds equal weight as to the privacy of those internet users that belong to the developed world. My confidence in any such company's privacy goals stands at a minimum because such companies have been sharing user's private data with law-enforcement agencies and even blocking blogs in some cases though will require some time to filter out evidence on the same. Fouad On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM, McTim wrote: > cc list trimmed. > > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: >> >> All, and especially Vint, >> >> I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, >> >> but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially >> says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble >> with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. > > If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any > standing to comment on their practices? > >> >> Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, >> as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by >> having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS > > Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have > concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to > that company and/or NOT USE those services. > >> >> and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members >> much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many >> obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives >> should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, >> or do, and could care less... > > If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a > period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that > they are full aware. The facts of the story you cite below leads me > to think they do care. > >> >> See: >> A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize >> IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html >> really as good as it sounds. We discussed >> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 > > It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in > the developing world than any other I can think of. It's certainly > the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org > support to SMEs, etc. This is just the latest example: http://www.o3 > bnetworks.com > > We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social > responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of > privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 03:57:07 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:57:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] Concerns regarding Gender Balance, Youth and developing country CS members participation in IGF Hyderabad Message-ID: <701af9f70809150057k1e878586te49ee3d13efe7564@mail.gmail.com> Reference to APC's interventions during the preparatory meetings for IGF Hyderabad, has the IGF secretariate shared any document that ensures that IGF in Hyderabad will carry gender balance and youth participation and involvement to a level deemed fair by civil society? Will the CS Caucus carryout any level of transparency and accountabilty to ensure this? Secondly, at any point in time, has the IGF considered bringing in individual actors and stakeholders into the IGF process from developing world countries where these individuals are not represented by organizational or government backing but have held their roles in effective participation in global dialogue on Internet governance from their regions? When the IGF declares to be an open and inclusive process, no support mechanism have either been proposed nor identified by its secretariate where representation from developing world country can both be supported and increased. Many civil society participants of the WSIS process that were not represented by any particular civil society organization were supported to participate but have not seen the inside of the IGF process after WSIS. These stakeholders are members of the multistakeholder groups and share important contributions to the IGF process, there seems to be no clear process whereby these stakeholders can meet financial needs for participation and the constraints continue to their participation in the IGF. Though I would like to elaborate my concerns more but are there any anticipated solutions to these issues or should we continue to just watch recorded web cast videos and read transcripts of the proceedings? -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa CS Member from Pakistan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 15 04:12:47 2008 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform Message-ID: <861315.84645.qm@web54102.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Fouad, These requests happen in the developed world too, but the issue is did Google agree to help in this case? But it is a point that many of us in the developed world too often neglect. Regards, David ----- Original Message ---- From: Fouad Bajwa To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Sent: Monday, 15 September, 2008 5:44:24 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform I would be a bit skeptical however regarding Google's practices in developing countries regarding privacy as most of the developing countries have no policies in place on privacy and this is a core threat to the privacy of their citizens. As I was once in an Information Security association meeting in Pakistan where the Google country consultant and the federal investigation authority chief were present and during that meeting some discussions took place where the investigation authority's chief requested the Google rep to request Google to share the information they required for solving cases related to cyber crime. Now a core issue here is that are there any generally accepted cyber crime and priacy practices and procedures that countries may endourse and practice at a global level and even a company like Google may have to abide to those generally accepted practices in the developing world countries. I have been very skeptical about some of the privacy discussions being oriented towards the western world/developed world forgetting that the developing world also constitutes a major portion of the internet user population and that their privacy also holds equal weight as to the privacy of those internet users that belong to the developed world. My confidence in any such company's privacy goals stands at a minimum because such companies have been sharing user's private data with law-enforcement agencies and even blocking blogs in some cases though will require some time to filter out evidence on the same. Fouad On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM, McTim wrote: > cc list trimmed. > > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: >> >> All, and especially Vint, >> >> I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, >> >> but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially >> says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble >> with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. > > If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any > standing to comment on their practices? > >> >> Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, >> as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by >> having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS > > Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have > concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to > that company and/or NOT USE those services. > >> >> and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members >> much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many >> obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives >> should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, >> or do, and could care less... > > If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a > period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that > they are full aware. The facts of the story you cite below leads me > to think they do care. > >> >> See: >> A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize >> IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html >> really as good as it sounds. We discussed >> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 > > It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in > the developing world than any other I can think of. It's certainly > the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org > support to SMEs, etc. This is just the latest example: http://www.o3 > bnetworks.com > > We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social > responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of > privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 04:19:41 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:19:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform In-Reply-To: <861315.84645.qm@web54102.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <861315.84645.qm@web54102.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70809150119s4e450ed1kbd05718168858a82@mail.gmail.com> David, you will possibly agree that Google or any other company will never let us know whether it agreed or not, their representatives only say during such meetings that kindly forward us an email with your request and we will put it through to the 'concerned'! So this concerned is very well concerned with wether such violations may occur or not and again, companies also reserve their privacy rights to disclosure of such information so we are stuck in quick sand for that matter! I have also wondered on certain occasions as to what is the role of being open and inclusive in terms of privacy and security issues because don't openness or inclusiveness undermine the issue at hand or do they actually facilitate privacy within the first place? Best Fouad On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM, David Goldstein wrote: > Fouad, > > These requests happen in the developed world too, but the issue is did Google agree to help in this case? But it is a point that many of us in the developed world too often neglect. > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Fouad Bajwa > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > Sent: Monday, 15 September, 2008 5:44:24 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform > > I would be a bit skeptical however regarding Google's practices in > developing countries regarding privacy as most of the developing > countries have no policies in place on privacy and this is a core > threat to the privacy of their citizens. > > As I was once in an Information Security association meeting in > Pakistan where the Google country consultant and the federal > investigation authority chief were present and during that meeting > some discussions took place where the investigation authority's chief > requested the Google rep to request Google to share the information > they required for solving cases related to cyber crime. > > Now a core issue here is that are there any generally accepted cyber > crime and priacy practices and procedures that countries may endourse > and practice at a global level and even a company like Google may have > to abide to those generally accepted practices in the developing world > countries. > > I have been very skeptical about some of the privacy discussions being > oriented towards the western world/developed world forgetting that the > developing world also constitutes a major portion of the internet user > population and that their privacy also holds equal weight as to the > privacy of those internet users that belong to the developed world. > > My confidence in any such company's privacy goals stands at a minimum > because such companies have been sharing user's private data with > law-enforcement agencies and even blocking blogs in some cases though > will require some time to filter out evidence on the same. > > Fouad > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM, McTim wrote: >> cc list trimmed. >> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams >> wrote: >>> >>> All, and especially Vint, >>> >>> I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, >>> >>> but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially >>> says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble >>> with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. >> >> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any >> standing to comment on their practices? >> >>> >>> Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, >>> as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by >>> having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS >> >> Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have >> concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to >> that company and/or NOT USE those services. >> >>> >>> and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members >>> much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many >>> obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives >>> should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, >>> or do, and could care less... >> >> If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a >> period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that >> they are full aware. The facts of the story you cite below leads me >> to think they do care. >> >>> >>> See: >>> A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize >>> IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html >>> really as good as it sounds. We discussed >>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 >> >> It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in >> the developing world than any other I can think of. It's certainly >> the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org >> support to SMEs, etc. This is just the latest example: http://www.o3 >> bnetworks.com >> >> We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social >> responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of >> privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 06:34:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:34:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops References: <48CA7798.95A7806C@ix.netcom.com> <45ed74050809141732o7131f2d7o742ff7485751d09b@mail.gmail.com> <48CC8DF3.C05E9DF@ix.netcom.com> <45ed74050809142309r541305bbj8fc94b2d460dd058@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CCE8A4.6DEA0F37@ix.netcom.com> Linda and all, I much appreciate your comments, information, and consideration in response. Yet I gather that from such, you missed my central point. But that's fine. I personally think, and pardon my common method of responding, it's my style, all be that style often times maligned, and sometimes pointedly, if not abruptly, that your reference to 21, 3 U.S.C. 853 isn't all that relevant to the legislation that is seemingly so intrusive and potentially unnecessarily disruptive, IMO of course. Rather, and due to the late hour here in Texas, and lack of further research time at this time, further reference, what is being, or has been considered, is that extra ordinary rights to Copywrite is being given or I should say offered, that did not hither to fore, exist, nor IMO again, needs to exist now. As such lessening the burden of proof of an allegation that perhaps does not warrant a search and seizure of property based on metrics, which you mention, that are not clearly defined, or even loosely to be likely known but only based upon a desire from some Copywrite holder or their legal representative, in this case the RIAA or the MPAA, and as a subsequent effect, destroy a business in the process, before adjudication, which is in question in the first place. Than there is what constitutes "Reasonable suspicion". For the purposes of illustration or example, I'll use myself as an example. Suppose there was some "musical or movie" that I found in say left over Google cache, and it happened to be something I liked, and would like to have ( BTW, I never download movies or music ), and couple that with the fact that I am a Security Professional. Is that "Reasonable Suspicion". Well it would seem so to the RIAA or the MPAA, and a false positive case could be forwarded to suggest I am a prime suspect. At such time a search and seizure of property warrant is requested to some judge, whom may or may not know anything at all about me, and any and all of my property related to electronic telecommunications equipment would be seized unjustifiably, and I would be damaged accordingly before I even had a opportunity to challenge the warrant. Is such reasonable? Well maybe, depending on the judge and the nature of the complaint. Ergo, any and all Security Professionals like myself, especially with a legal background, are automatic suspects. I don't find such reasonable, and ergo my objection this this proposed legislation. Further let me say, that given the RIAA's in particular and to a lessor degree, the MPAA's recent court history, which Jon Stanley is far more familiar with than I, it is clear that this legislation is more akin to political grandstanding and favors than it is in protecting Copywrite holders, and egregiously creates a scenario which easily can/will damage the average Joe, and even a Security Professional like myself whom is guilty of nothing what so ever, immeasurably and without reasonable recourse. Such cannot be reasonable jurist prudence... I suppose it's a good thing Chief Justice John Jay is not with us today, as if he were, the RIAA and the MPAA's officers would be held indefinitely in contempt in the than lowest bowels of the than existing confinement facilities! “As to the position that 'the people always mean well,' that they always mean to say and do what they believe to be right and just — it may be popular, but it can not be true. The word people applies to all the individual inhabitants of a country.... That portion of them who individually mean well never was, nor until the millennium will be, considerable. Pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication and with it a thousand pranks and fooleries. I do not expect mankind will, before the millennium, be what they ought to be and therefore, in my opinion, every political theory which does not regard them as being what they are, will prove abortive. Yet I wish to see all unjust and unnecessary discriminations everywhere abolished, and that the time may come when all our inhabitants of every color and discrimination shall be free and equal partakers of our political liberties.” John Jay ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com wrote: > Dear Jeffrey and All, > > [longish, w/current gmail spellcheck suspended].]. > > Thanks for the further comments, and here is a pro tem reflection upon them: > > This is such a compelling topic; guide us further. > > I make no claim, and even assert 'minus current comprehension' of the current IP field in particular, and know there are experts here we may hear from with delight and instructiveness. > > But about balancing or at least accommodating diverse interests, I do feel passionately, and express concern that moves to prevent or remedy apparent 'intrusiveness' by one entity upon another's turf must be guarded against creating other and even more serious hence unacceptable intrusions in the process. > > Here, where and when contemplated 'protections' are said to follow entry and seizure of property (and perhaps especially in the name of protecting property albeit other property) one might suggest that much offended would be 'the right to be left alone,' and so far following the link (more info please!) one sees a plausibly noble effort toward protections for records seized, but plausibly only after the bridge has been breached ("The court shall enter an appropriate protective order with respect to discovery by the applicant of any records that have been seized.") > > Without presuming to discuss the recording industry's interest in such seizures, and in the context e.g. of say U.S. Constitution protections regarding search and seizure, I was linked in this inquiry to (IP Bill) HR 4279 and hence to section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug 2 Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 – 21, 3 U.S.C. 853 (ldmf-note: again, this is just jointly a first sortie; if you wish to provide some other links that will be great). > > Et voila! One expected 'probable cause' to be the stated standard, and here 'tiz and as usual - who are the deciders and what are the metrics - that is a real meaty question. > > "(f) Warrant of seizure > The Government may request the issuance of a warrant authorizing the seizure of property subject to forfeiture under this section in the same manner as provided for a search warrant. If the court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the property to be seized would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture and that an order under subsection (e) of this section may not be sufficient to assure the availability of the property for forfeiture, the court shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property." > > So - If you have time and interest, your thoughts on the above will be interesting to read and react to. > > I don't say this is all cut and dried' or these initial notes at all dispositive even on current musings, and would like in the future to discuss the matters of multistakeholder interests viewed in plurality (ref. my "Respectful Interfaces" Programme in the CCC/UN – Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N. (any faults herein are my own of course and not representative of an organization). But for now it would be helpful just to establish whether 'probable cause' is indeed as glimpsed above the standard, suggesting something is more likely than not and beyond a 'reasonable suspicion' standard but short of 'clear and convincing' evidence (or cognates in different cultural contexts)" > > 'Cuz before they get to the machine they have to get into the building. one supposes. . > > And a slant-reference: When I spoke personally with the Robert Morris Judge decades back (my recall is that) he said he wished he hadn't gotten the "thorny" case & most pointedly, have to consider the then rather or extremely novel matter criminal (but if still around, his Honor might dispute me on this recollection). > > And, facially, has a "right to." > > With best wishes, Linda. > > On 9/14/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Linda and all, > > > > Good thinking! > > > > Of course I am no fan of the RIAA or for that matter their > > bastard step child, the dreadful MPAA, and they are well > > aware of it! And yet ICANN's indirect funding largely comes > > from paid lobbyist of these two disgraceful organizations, indirectly. > > They are the modern day equivalents of the Sheriff of Sherwood > > forest and his sleazy henchmen, IMO along with their ICANN > > allies, the sleazy IPC. Yet I do fully understand that they have > > ligitimate membership protection interests to attend to, of which > > I, nor any of our members would hope the IGC would have > > any problem with. It is the manner in which they go about exercising > > those duties and interests that I, and our members have significant > > differences with, this political maneuver not withstanding. > > > > It is difficult for me to understand how the Judiciary committee > > could have approved such legislation for full consideration. Perhaps > > it is because their PAC's and political campaigns are receiving > > copious donations for their re-election bids from these organizations? > > So much for principals, and years/decades of modern jurist prudence, > > if so, eh? >:( > > > > To borrow and slightly modify a phrase: "Cry havoc, let loose > > the dogs of political war!" > > > > ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Dear Jeffrey, > >> > >> Thanks for this early heads-up. > >> > >> We should scamper over on the link and look for standards of putative > >> evidence triggering whatever takeovers of computers are contemplated. > >> Among other issues of course. > >> > >> Best wishes, Linda M F. > >> > >> On 9/12/08, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > >> > All, > >> > > >> > Regarding rights, ( This one really bothers me ) see: > >> > > >> > "The Senate Judiciary Committee has > >> > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080911-committee-amends-approves-enormous-gift-to-big-content.html > >> > > >> > approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights > >> > Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would > >> > take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using > >> > civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in > >> > infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as > >> > servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and > >> > these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best > >> > the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used > >> > for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should > >> > go > >> > rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill > >> > is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for > >> > > >> > seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign > >> > copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent > >> > people will be harmed by this law." > >> > > >> > My notes: Seems to me that sense the RIAA and the MPAA have > >> > been loosing cases all of the country, as have their counterparts in > >> > other countries, this legislation was borne from lobbying of those > >> > IP organizations and their members for extraordinary Rights, in that > >> > they cannot or will not protect their own IP rights in accordance > >> > with current law and available technology. > >> > > >> > Comments, thoughts, suggestions? > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > >> > Abraham Lincoln > >> > > >> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >> > > >> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >> > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >> > =============================================================== > >> > Updated 1/26/04 > >> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >> > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >> > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >> > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Individual Email. > >> For further I.D. (ref./only) > >> Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. > >> CONGO Education Committee > >> Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. > >> ... > >> Other Affiliations on Request. > > > Semper Fi, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 07:12:53 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:12:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, McTim wrote: > cc list trimmed. > > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > > > All, and especially Vint, > > > > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, > > > > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially > > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble > > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. > > If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any > standing to comment on their practices? Personally I don't. But a few of our members do. > > > > > > Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, > > as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by > > having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS > > Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have > concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to > that company and/or NOT USE those services. Agreed to a degree. Simply doing as you suggest does not effect change as history has shown in a reasonable direction more often than not. > > > > > > and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members > > much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many > > obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives > > should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, > > or do, and could care less... > > If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a > period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that > they are full aware. The facts of the story you cite below leads me > to think they do care. Problem is they haven't done so until very recently, and even at that, they have not done so in a very broad public way. Why do they need to keep this data anyway? > > > > > > See: > > A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize > > IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html > > really as good as it sounds. We discussed > > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 > > It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in > the developing world than any other I can think of. It's certainly > the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org > support to SMEs, etc. This is just the latest example: http://www.o3 > bnetworks.com True enough, ignorance is bliss I suppose... > > > We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social > responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of > privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns. Obviously I disagree to an extent. I am not a privacy advocate in the political sense. Sure, I do have a strong belief in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution and the privacy rights it extolls. As such, and when Google or any other company or individual tramples or mitigates those rights, however minutely, I proudly and rightly object. This is as I see it, and swore to same, my duty as an American citizen, and Security Professional. A US corporations primary social responsibility is as it should be, FIRST and FORMOST to abide by the ALL the laws and Constitutional provisions, and rights under the Bill of Rights. Not to mitigate same in their own corporate social ideal for the purposes of political advantage of the day or time. So if we are going to ever have an "Internet Bill of Rights" we as a caucus are going to need to get Google on board of fully, and without any mitigation, respecting individual users rights. A tall order to be sure! Otherwise a "Internet Bill of Rights" is a nearly a useless exercise or a empty vessel of very little, if any value. I know where I stand, and where you and Google stand at present. Hopefully we can convince you that your and Googles possition is not yet in the interest of the "Greater Good" and when your and Googles is, old Ben's sprit can be proud of us all. >:) > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 07:27:01 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:27:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU IP traceback standards References: <48CD4B1D.2000200@gmail.com> <45ed74050809142304wf30091ew17943f1047b44623@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CCF505.35EB28CA@ix.netcom.com> Linda and all, I prefer low calorie, but high standing! >:) Or as Gerry was fond of saying, "Where's the beef"? >:) As one that has done and still does "Content analysis", and done so for many years professionally, there nearly infinite ways of interpreting nearly any sort of content, and few verifiable ways of authenticating that, or any content that is being analyzed. Yet many assumptions, usually wrong, are made anyway on such content. Ergo why standards of traceback are not reasonably tenable over time as methods of generating content change so rapidly and radically, a narrow point in time is about the best that can be reasonably accomplished, and even at that, truly authenticating such remains elusive. ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com wrote: > Hi Sylvia, and from this desk - very important it seems. > > Trace-backs and retroactive data-mining forays (procedures and > processes) seem inevitably to lead to the not tivial substantive > chores of "content analysis" among other things, and there are huge > issues of authentification and interpretation let alone 'fall out > repercussions and take aways'. > > Hope the discussion continues with high calorie standing. > > :) Linda. > > On 9/14/08, Sylvia Caras wrote: > > Does the IGC want to take a position on this, provide comments? > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=nl.e703 > > > > > > > > Sylvia > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > Individual Email. > For further I.D. (ref./only) > Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. > CONGO Education Committee > Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes. > National Disability Party > International Disability Caucus > Persons with Pain International > WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant. > 2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council > Invitee, Harvard and Yale Meetings on ICT rights / Development / Law. > Member Assoc. Computing Machinery./ American Bar Assn, Trigeminal Neuralia Assn. > U.N. Mental Health Committee SubComittee on ICT. > 4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets > Reearch Asst.G.A. Resolutions in Our Changing World. > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 05:51:20 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:51:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform In-Reply-To: <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > McTim and all, > > McTim wrote: > >> cc list trimmed. >> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams >> wrote: >> > >> > All, and especially Vint, >> > >> > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, >> > >> > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially >> > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble >> > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. >> >> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any >> standing to comment on their practices? > > Personally I don't. But a few of our members do. really? http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0211/msg00112.html This is just a reminder that INEG group does not exist, that Jeff Williams is not to be taken seriously, and that he speaks only for himself and not for a group of over 100,000 people. A number of us on this list have been on lists with you before, and know your history. I welcome you to this list, but hope that you could limit your posts as requested by others previously.. Replying for the sake of replying is counter to the netiquette RFC mentioned in our charter. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 06:03:25 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:03:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform In-Reply-To: <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70809150303k1bc587bcy58bd1b53c1d49c47@mail.gmail.com> Fairly well put this time now! Best Fouad Bajwa On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > McTim and all, > > McTim wrote: > >> cc list trimmed. >> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams >> wrote: >> > >> > All, and especially Vint, >> > >> > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, >> > >> > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially >> > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble >> > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. >> >> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any >> standing to comment on their practices? > > Personally I don't. But a few of our members do. > >> >> >> > >> > Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, >> > as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by >> > having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS >> >> Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have >> concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to >> that company and/or NOT USE those services. > > Agreed to a degree. Simply doing as you suggest does not effect > change as history has shown in a reasonable direction more often > than not. > >> >> >> > >> > and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members >> > much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many >> > obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives >> > should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, >> > or do, and could care less... >> >> If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a >> period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that >> they are full aware. The facts of the story you cite below leads me >> to think they do care. > > Problem is they haven't done so until very recently, and even at > that, they have not done so in a very broad public way. Why do > they need to keep this data anyway? > >> >> >> > >> > See: >> > A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize >> > IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html >> > really as good as it sounds. We discussed >> > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 >> >> It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in >> the developing world than any other I can think of. It's certainly >> the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org >> support to SMEs, etc. This is just the latest example: http://www.o3 >> bnetworks.com > > True enough, ignorance is bliss I suppose... > >> >> >> We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social >> responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of >> privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns. > > Obviously I disagree to an extent. I am not a privacy advocate > in the political sense. Sure, I do have a strong belief in the Bill > of Rights and the US Constitution and the privacy rights it extolls. > As such, and when Google or any other company or individual > tramples or mitigates those rights, however minutely, I proudly > and rightly object. This is as I see it, and swore to same, my > duty as an American citizen, and Security Professional. A US > corporations primary social responsibility is as it should be, > FIRST and FORMOST to abide by the ALL the laws and Constitutional > provisions, and rights under the Bill of Rights. Not to mitigate > same in their own corporate social ideal for the purposes of > political advantage of the day or time. So if we are going to > ever have an "Internet Bill of Rights" we as a caucus are going to > need to get Google on board of fully, and without any mitigation, > respecting individual users rights. A tall order to be sure! > > Otherwise a "Internet Bill of Rights" is a nearly a useless exercise > or a empty vessel of very little, if any value. I know where I stand, > and where you and Google stand at present. Hopefully we can > convince you that your and Googles possition is not yet in the interest > of the "Greater Good" and when your and Googles is, old Ben's sprit > can be proud of us all. >:) > >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 06:10:43 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:10:43 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" - UN & ITU plan to remove anonomity from Internet Message-ID: <701af9f70809150310l7c46850ax310ba25a6662d47b@mail.gmail.com> All members of the CS Caucus should be aware of this..............is it really possible to do so! Well they are eventually doing it and I wasn't expecting ITU to be at the heart of this and I wonder why no one in CS Caucus mentioned this earlier, well its happening now: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 Plz read below the signature for the original message: Fouad Bajwa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:40:42 +0200 From: Alberto Barrionuevo Subject: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" To: public This article argues that UN & ITU plan to remove anonomity from Internet by proposal of China via a standard workgroup called "IP Traceback" (its name is descriptive enough): http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 Saludos, -- Alberto Barrionuevo President FFII www.ffii.org ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ bxl mailing list bxl at ffii.org https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/bxl End of bxl Digest, Vol 50, Issue 4 ********************************** -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 15 17:38:57 2008 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:38:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] email address for comments, IGF consultation Sept 16 Message-ID: Hi, Email addresses for comments and questions for the IGF consultation Sept 16 are English 16september at intgovforum.info and French 16septembre at intgovforum.info Meeting agenda: < http://www.intgovforum.org/Agenda.Consultations.16.09.2008.pdf> Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From asif at kabani.co.uk Mon Sep 15 18:13:37 2008 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:13:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] email address for comments, IGF consultation Sept 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8017791e0809151513j2a63f982i521680f0a68a8350@mail.gmail.com> Adam, Thanks Kabani 2008/9/15 Adam Peake > Hi, > > Email addresses for comments and questions for the IGF consultation Sept 16 > are > > English > > 16september at intgovforum.info > > and French > > 16septembre at intgovforum.info > > Meeting agenda: < > http://www.intgovforum.org/Agenda.Consultations.16.09.2008.pdf> > > 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 > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 20:12:41 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:12:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48CDA879.B37EEC4B@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, Your reference, http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0211/msg00112.html is from a person I do not know, have never met, nor have to my current knowledge ever exchanged any Email with. The sender of this nonsense is one whom identifies himself as one Albert Brickel Whom I also do not know, have never met, nor do I recall ever exchanging any Email with. I also would not even consider Mr. Brickel is whom he says he is due to the fact he uses Yahoo as his Email provider whose DNS is miss configured, see: http://member.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnslite.php?r=homepage&domain=yahoo.com and http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=yahoo.com&token=25c0275961eb9a1e3e85538c313c9019 which is the "Official" DNS tool of the OMB, and the GAO. As anyone of reasonable intelligence and even a moderate knowledge of DNS, an "Open Relay" is a prelude for falsifying ones identity, or for hackers to use for any number of nefarious or illegal purposes, and too often is. I have never claimed to be a member of the Texas state democratic of Republican caucus, I HAVE never been associated directly with either party nor am I registered as a Democratic or Republican. You can check the voter registration for the state of Texas for that information. So this person, whomever he of she is, in that part of your referenced post alone has told a untruth that is easily checked. I do have a law degree, but do not specialize in Trademark or IP law, and never have, as this person improperly states. Nor have I ever stated such. I did attend several economic conferences, one was in Waco. Ergo, this person, and again whomever he or she is, is factually either mistaken, has miss stated second hand information in some skewed manner, or is just into character assignation for whatever purposes he or she feels is to some ends that I cannot determine, nor really care to do so. INEGroup has more than 200,000 members and now nearly 300,000 members at last count and all are registered with the FEC. An FOIA request will if properly filled out, gain you or anyone else the relevant information accordingly. But thank you for pointing me to this link, I shall report it to the proper authorities in short order. And if you like, I will forward that report on to you or anyone whom requests it. In any event, I don't see how any of your below remarks have anything what so ever to do with Rights and Privacy, or Google's TOS and or policies. Ergo such a personal attack, especially based on second hand and/or false statements only diminishes your disagreement with the facts and Googles practice and underscores why Google is often miss used or used for nafarious purposes that needs correcting more fully than they have to date. I would kindly and strongly suggest that they follow ASK.COM's example, see: http://www.ask.com/askeraserjsdisabled?rp=askeraserjsdisabled&ejs=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ask.com%2F and http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/askeraser.shtml These are appropriate policies. McTim wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > McTim and all, > > > > McTim wrote: > > > >> cc list trimmed. > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > All, and especially Vint, > >> > > >> > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, > >> > > >> > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially > >> > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble > >> > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. > >> > >> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any > >> standing to comment on their practices? > > > > Personally I don't. But a few of our members do. > > really? > > http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0211/msg00112.html > > > This is just a reminder that INEG > group does not exist, that Jeff Williams is not to be > taken seriously, and that he speaks only for himself > and not for a group of over 100,000 people. > > > A number of us on this list have been on lists with you before, and > know your history. > > I welcome you to this list, but hope that you could limit your posts > as requested by others previously.. Replying for the sake of replying > is counter to the netiquette RFC mentioned in our charter. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 20:17:14 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:17:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> <701af9f70809150303k1bc587bcy58bd1b53c1d49c47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CDA98A.8F6717A1@ix.netcom.com> Fouad and all, Thank you! Unfortunately some or a few among us seem to disagree and degrade into personal attacks as an argument. >:( But perhaps such can be understood at some level, which is a level I find personally to be one below my serious interest, yet can conceed is a behavior that with such weighty issues often times unfortunately is displayed. Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Fairly well put this time now! > > Best > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > McTim and all, > > > > McTim wrote: > > > >> cc list trimmed. > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > All, and especially Vint, > >> > > >> > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, > >> > > >> > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially > >> > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble > >> > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. > >> > >> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any > >> standing to comment on their practices? > > > > Personally I don't. But a few of our members do. > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Given that Privacy is a very special and most important right, > >> > as it is not separable from saftey/security, endangering others by > >> > having business practices and policies such as Googles TOS > >> > >> Individuals use web services of certain companies, if they have > >> concerns about those companies practices, then they should complain to > >> that company and/or NOT USE those services. > > > > Agreed to a degree. Simply doing as you suggest does not effect > > change as history has shown in a reasonable direction more often > > than not. > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > and this article below demonstrates gives me and our members > >> > much more than just pause, but grave concern as well for many > >> > obvious and not so obvious reasons, all of which Google executives > >> > should be well aware of and/or recognize fully, but either don't, > >> > or do, and could care less... > >> > >> If, according to their biz model they feel the need to keep data for a > >> period of time, and make users aware of this, then it seems to me that > >> they are full aware. The facts of the story you cite below leads me > >> to think they do care. > > > > Problem is they haven't done so until very recently, and even at > > that, they have not done so in a very broad public way. Why do > > they need to keep this data anyway? > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > See: > >> > A story questioning whether Google's recent commitment to anonymize > >> > IP logs faster is http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html > >> > really as good as it sounds. We discussed > >> > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/09/1334251&tid=158 > >> > >> It seems to me that this company is doing more for Internet growth in > >> the developing world than any other I can think of. It's certainly > >> the case here in East Africa, with Apps, translation, google.org > >> support to SMEs, etc. This is just the latest example: http://www.o3 > >> bnetworks.com > > > > True enough, ignorance is bliss I suppose... > > > >> > >> > >> We, as a caucus, should embrace this type of corporate social > >> responsibility, not criticize them for listening to the concerns of > >> privacy advocates, and acting upon those concerns. > > > > Obviously I disagree to an extent. I am not a privacy advocate > > in the political sense. Sure, I do have a strong belief in the Bill > > of Rights and the US Constitution and the privacy rights it extolls. > > As such, and when Google or any other company or individual > > tramples or mitigates those rights, however minutely, I proudly > > and rightly object. This is as I see it, and swore to same, my > > duty as an American citizen, and Security Professional. A US > > corporations primary social responsibility is as it should be, > > FIRST and FORMOST to abide by the ALL the laws and Constitutional > > provisions, and rights under the Bill of Rights. Not to mitigate > > same in their own corporate social ideal for the purposes of > > political advantage of the day or time. So if we are going to > > ever have an "Internet Bill of Rights" we as a caucus are going to > > need to get Google on board of fully, and without any mitigation, > > respecting individual users rights. A tall order to be sure! > > > > Otherwise a "Internet Bill of Rights" is a nearly a useless exercise > > or a empty vessel of very little, if any value. I know where I stand, > > and where you and Google stand at present. Hopefully we can > > convince you that your and Googles possition is not yet in the interest > > of the "Greater Good" and when your and Googles is, old Ben's sprit > > can be proud of us all. >:) > > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> mctim.blogspot.com (a Google service) > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 20:28:59 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:28:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" -UN & References: <701af9f70809150310l7c46850ax310ba25a6662d47b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CDAC4A.F0AEA93C@ix.netcom.com> Fouad and all, I did mention this earlier. But as some know whom have some experiance with the ITU, that that standards body has been interested in desiring to go this direction for several years now. They have also had serious disagreements with their main standards rival, the IETF as well, see: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html?netht=083007dailynews1&&nladname=083107dailynews Fouad Bajwa wrote: > All members of the CS Caucus should be aware of this..............is > it really possible to do so! Well they are eventually doing it and I > wasn't expecting ITU to be at the heart of this and I wonder why no > one in CS Caucus mentioned this earlier, well its happening now: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 > > Plz read below the signature for the original message: > > Fouad Bajwa > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:40:42 +0200 > From: Alberto Barrionuevo > Subject: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" > To: public > > This article argues that UN & ITU plan to remove anonomity from Internet by > proposal of China via a standard workgroup called "IP Traceback" (its name is > descriptive enough): > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 > > Saludos, > -- > Alberto Barrionuevo > President FFII > www.ffii.org > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > bxl mailing list > bxl at ffii.org > https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/bxl > > End of bxl Digest, Vol 50, Issue 4 > ********************************** > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 21:02:38 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:02:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Secret Counterfeiting Treaty Must Be Made Public, Global OrganizationsSay] Message-ID: <48CDB42E.659FFD6C@ix.netcom.com> All, FTY, and for those of you that would like to also sign on. see: http://www.essentialaction.org/access/index.php?/archives/173-Secret-Counterfeiting-Treaty-Public-Must-be-Made-Public,-Global-Organizations-Say.html and or contact Sarah Rimmington at srimmington at essentialinformation.org FWIW, this has serious and obvious implications to individual rights and any good "Internet Bill of Rights" for this caucus. Also FWIW, I noticed Google is not signed on... ???? But I remain hopeful that Google will sign on in accordance with all freedom loving peoples all over the globe. Maybe Vint can "Evangelize" with his fellow Sr. Executives at Google to do so. Good luck Vint! >:) I also noticed that ICANN nor the ITU have signed on board either. Lets all hope that they will do so soon as well! >:) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Secret Counterfeiting Treaty Must Be Made Public, Global OrganizationsSay Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:21:35 -0400 From: Sarah Rimmington To: grenouf at choice.com.au, CORPORACION OPCION , olivier at corporateeurope.org, mirashiva at yahoo.com, noon2th at yahoo.com, mario at cej.org.mx, Soha Abdelaty , dave at difference.com.au, nic at suzor.com, katitza at datos-personales.org, Wim Vandevelde ,emira at ips-dc.org, George Carter , ifarma at etb.ne.co, jiraporn ,alaegre at fma.ph Dear all, Following you will find a press release and then the final version of the global sign-on letter to the countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The letters were faxed to the relevant trade ministers this morning. There were just over 175 endorsements (just over 100 of which where from civil society organizations; the remainder were experts and individuals). You can download he full text of the letter and the list of signers at: http://www.essentialaction.org/access/uploads/ACTA-signon.rtf Additional quotes from international groups signing the letter are available at: http://www.essentialaction.org/access/uploads/ACTAquotes.rtf You can also access the documents on Essential Action's website at: www.essentialaction.org/access/index.php?/archives/173-Secret-Counterfeiting-Treaty-Public-Must-be-Made-Public,-Global-Organizations-Say.html If you would like to keep up with activities relating to campaigning and collarborating on this issue in the United States (focused on copyright/privacy and related tech issues not access to medicines) please contact Gwen Hinze at Electronic Frontier Foundation (gwen at eff.org) and ask to be added to the ENFORCE email list. Thanks for your solidarity. Regards, Sarah Rimmington Attorney Essential Action, Washington, DC, USA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 15, 2008 For more information contact: USA: Robert Weissman, director, Essential Action +1 (202) 387-8030, (Mobile) +1 (202) 360-1844, rob at essential.org Australia: Kimberlee Weatherall, Lecturer, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland and Board Member, Australian Digital Alliance, (Mobile) +61 4 0376 2544, k.weatherall at law.uq.edu.au Canada: Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, (Office) +1 (613) 562-5800 ext. 3319, mgeist at uottawa.ca Korea: Byoung-il Oh, Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet, (Tel) +82-2-774-455, (Mobile) +82-19-213-9199, antiropy at www.jinbo.net **Secret Counterfeiting Treaty Must Be Made Public, Global Organizations Say** More than 100 public interest organizations from around the world today called on officials from the countries negotiating Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) -- the United States, the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand -- to publish immediately the draft text of the agreement. Secrecy around the treaty negotiation has fueled concerns that its terms will undermine vital consumer interests. Organizations signing the letter include: Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), Australian Digital Alliance, The Canadian Library Association, Consumers Union of Japan, National Consumer Council (UK) and Doctors without Borders’ Campaign for Essential Medicines. Based on leaked documents and industry comments on the proposed treaty, the groups expressed concerns that ACTA may: * Require Internet Service Providers to monitor all consumers' Internet communications; * Interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials; * Criminalize peer-to-peer electronic file sharing; and * Undermine access to low-cost generic medicines. "Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited," say the public interest groups in their letter. Worsening the problem is the perception that industry lobbyists have access to the text and are influencing the negotiations. "The lack of transparency in negotiations of an agreement that will affect the fundamental rights of citizens of the world is fundamentally undemocratic. It is made worse by the public perception that lobbyists from the music, film, software, video games, luxury goods and pharmaceutical industries have had ready access to the ACTA text and pre-text discussion documents through long-standing communication channels." "Why in the world are trade negotiators keeping the treaty a secret?" asks Robert Weissman, director of Essential Action. "Are they worried about counterfeiters influencing the negotiations? What possible rationale is there for secrecy -- other than to lock out the public? Intentionally or not, a treaty to prevent unauthorized copying may easily go too far, and undermine important consumer interests. That's why it is so important that this deal be negotiated in the light of day." The full text of the letter and the list of signers are available at: http://www.essentialaction.org/access/uploads/ACTA-signon.rtf Additional quotes from international groups signing the letter are available at: http://www.essentialaction.org/access/uploads/ACTAquotes.rtf You can also access the documents at: www.essentialaction.org/access/index.php?/archives/173-Secret-Counterfeiting-Treaty-Public-Must-be-Made-Public,-Global-Organizations-Say.html Essential Action is a public health and corporate accountability group located in Washington, DC. --- ***Additional Comments on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Negotiations*** Kimberlee Weatherall, Lecturer, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland, and Board Member, Australian Digital Alliance "It's extraordinary that a treaty which potentially affects such a wide range of interests would be negotiated behind closed doors: there's too much at stake. Secrecy is only increasing people's fears, and the belief that the negotiations aren't taking sufficient account of the public interest." Professor David Fewer, Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law "We're looking for the Canadian government to show leadership in introducing transparency and responsible consumer consultation to ACTA discussions." Professor Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law “ACTA has raised concerns for millions of citizens around the world. The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy and ensure that the future negotiations occur in an open and transparent environment.” Heeseob Nam, IP Left, Seoul, Korea "ACTA is another name for "kicking away the ladder" with which the industrialised nations climbed to the top. During the debate of Patent Act of 1790, Richard Wells argued that Americans should not be deprived of the advantage of imitating any of the English invention. This argument prevailed in the U.S. House, and the importation of patents became prohibited. This policy objective was invigorated by discrimination against foreign inventors in the US, and the statute lasted for about 70 years after 1793." Gwen Hinze, International Policy Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA, USA "Despite its potentially harmful impact on consumers' privacy and free expression, and on Internet innovation, the citizens that stand to be directly affected by ACTA's provisions have been given almost no information about its contents. A leaked document includes new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders", criminal measures, and increased border search powers, all of which raise considerable concern for citizens' civil liberties. Given the expedited timeframe in which it is being negotiated, citizens deserve to see the full text of ACTA now, so that they can evaluate its impact on their lives." James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Washington, DC, USA "Counterfeiting, properly defined, is a serious problem. Why the top secret negotiating approach for this treaty? The USTR won't even give us the agendas of the meetings or the names of the negotiators, or the proposed texts -- stuff that is normally transparent. I think the answer is the bogus use of an emotive term, counterfeiting, to push an unbalanced IP enforcement agenda, without any attention to civil or consumer rights. Unfortunately, there is bipartisan support for this assault on openness and transparency. Little wonder most people don't trust governments these days. Why should they?" Sherwin Siy, Staff Attorney and Director of Global Knowledge Initiative, Public Knowledge, Washington, DC, USA “It's incredible that such a significant document on such vital issues can move forward when virtually nothing is known or shared about its actual contents. If we are going to have international agreements on matters so essential to the exchange of speech, information, and knowledge, these agreements cannot be made in secret.” -- September 15, 2008 Dear Minister, Re: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Negotiations We are writing to urge the negotiators of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to immediately publish the draft text of the agreement, as well as pre-draft discussion papers (especially for portions for which no draft text yet exists), before continuing further discussions over the treaty. We ask also that you publish the agenda for negotiating sessions and treaty-related meetings in advance of such meetings, and publish a list of participants in the negotiations. There is no legitimate rationale to keep the treaty text secret, and manifold reasons for immediate publication. The trade in products intended to deceive consumers as to who made them poses important but complicated public policy issues. An overbroad or poorly drafted international instrument on counterfeiting could have very harmful consequences. Based on news reports and published material from various business associations, we are deeply concerned about matters such as whether the treaty will: * Require Internet Service Providers to monitor all consumers' Internet communications, terminate their customers' Internet connections based on rights holders' repeat allegation of copyright infringement, and divulge the identity of alleged copyright infringers possibly without judicial process, threatening Internet users' due process and privacy rights; and potentially make ISPs liable for their end users' alleged infringing activity; * Interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials; * Criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing; * Interfere with legitimate parallel trade in goods, including the resale of brand-name pharmaceutical products; * Impose liability on manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), if those APIs are used to make counterfeits -- a liability system that may make API manufacturers reluctant to sell to legal generic drug makers, and thereby significantly damage the functioning of the legal generic pharmaceutical industry; * Improperly criminalize acts not done for commercial purpose and with no public health consequences; and * Improperly divert public resources into enforcement of private rights. Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited. Equally, because the treaty text and relevant discussion documents remain secret, treaty negotiators are denied the insights and perspectives that public interest organizations and individuals could offer. Public review of the texts and a meaningful ability to comment would, among other benefits, help prevent unanticipated pernicious problems arising from the treaty. Such unforeseen outcomes are not unlikely, given the complexity of the issues involved. The lack of transparency in negotiations of an agreement that will affect the fundamental rights of citizens of the world is fundamentally undemocratic. It is made worse by the public perception that lobbyists from the music, film, software, video games, luxury goods and pharmaceutical industries have had ready access to the ACTA text and pre-text discussion documents through long-standing communication channels. The G8's recent Declaration on the World Economy implored negotiators to conclude ACTA negotiations this year. The speed of the negotiations makes it imperative that relevant text and documents be made available to the citizens of the world immediately. We look forward to your response, and to working with you toward resolution of our concerns. Sincerely, Essential Action c/o Robert Weissman, Director P.O. Box 19405 Washington, DC, USA 20036 Tel +1 (202) 387-8030 Fax +1 (202) 234-5176 Act Up East Bay Oakland, CA, USA Act Up Paris Paris, France African Underprivileged Children's Foundation (AUCF) Lagos, Nigeria AIDS Access Foundation Thailand AIDS Healthcare Foundation Los Angeles, CA, USA AIDS Treatment News Philadelphia, PA, USA American Medical Student Association Reston, VA, USA AIS Colombia Bogotá, Colombia ASEED Europe Amsterdam, The Netherlands Asia Pacific Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (APN+) Australian Digital Alliance Kingston, Australia Australian National University Canberra, Australia Australian Privacy Foundation Sydney, Australia Bharatiya Krishakn Samaj New Delhi, India BUKO Pharma-Kampagne Bielefeld, Germany The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network Toronto, Canada The Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Ottawa, Canada The Canadian Library Association Ottawa, Canada The Canadian Treatment Action Council Toronto, Canada Center for Democracy and Technology Washington, DC, USA Center for Digital Democracy Washington, DC, USA Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH) San Francisco, CA, USA Centre for Safety & Rational Use of Indian Systems of Medicine Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine & Sciences Aligarh, India The Center for Women's Culture & Theory Korea Chinese Domain Name User Alliance Beijing, China Christian Media Network Korea CHOICE (Australian Consumers Association) Marrickville, Australia Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP) New York, NY, USA Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) Cape Town, South Africa Consumentenbond The Hague, Netherlands Consumer Action San Francisco, CA, USA Consumer Federation of America Washington, DC, USA Consumers Union (Publisher of Consumer Reports) Yonkers, NY, USA Consumers Union of Japan (Nihon Shohisha Renmei) Tokyo, Japan La Corporacion Opcion por el Derecho a Ser y el Deber de Hacer, NIT Bogotá, Colombia Corporate Europe Observatory Amsterdam, The Netherlands Cultural Action Korea Diverse Women for Diversity (DWD) New Delhi, India Drug Study Group (DSG) Thailand Ecologist Collective (Colectivo ecologista Jalisco A.C.) Guadalajara, México Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights Cairo, Egypt Electronic Frontier Foundation San Francisco, CA, USA Electronic Frontiers Australia Adelaide, Australia The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC, USA European AIDS Treatment Group (EATG) Brussels, Belgium Foreign Policy in Focus Institute for Policy Studies Washington, DC, USA Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research (FIAR) Brooklyn, NY, USA Fundación Ifarma Bogotá, Colombia Foundation For Consumers (FFC) Thailand Foundation for Media Alternatives Philippines Foundation for Research in Science Technology & Ecology (RFSTE) India Free Press Washington, DC, USA FTA Watch Thailand Global AIDS Alliance Washington, DC USA Global Health through Education, Training & Service (GHETS) Attleborough, MA, USA Global Trade Watch Washington, DC, USA Gram Bharati Samiti Society for Rural Development Amber, India Gyeonggi NGO Network Korea Health Action International (HAI) – Africa Nairobi, Kenya Health Action International (HAI) – Asia Pacific Colombo, Sri Lanka Health Action International (HAI) – Europe Amsterdam, The Netherlands Health Action International (HAI) – Global Amsterdam, The Netherlands Health Action International – Latin America & Caribbean Lima, Perú Health GAP (Global Access Project) Philadelphia, PA, USA HealthWrights (Workgroup for Peoples Health and Rights) Palo Alto, CA, USA Healthy Skepticism Inc. Adelaide, Australia Home Recording Rights Coalition Washington, DC, USA INEGroup Atlanta, GA, USA Information & Culture Nuri for the Disabled Korea Initiative For Health Equity & Society (IHES) New Delhi, India International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) The Hague, Netherlands International Peoples Health Council (South Asia) Intersect Worldwide India, South Africa and USA IP Justice San Francisco, CA, USA IPLeft Seoul, Korea Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) Geneva, Switzerland, London, UK and Washington, DC, USA Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet Seoul, Korea Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre Lagos, Nigeria Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit India Medsin-UK Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) Campaign for Essential Medicines Geneva, Switzerland Media Access Project Washington, DC, USA La Mesa de ONGs Con Trabajo en VIH/SIDA Bogotá, Colombia Misión Salud Bogotá, Colombia National Consumer Council (NCC) London, UK National Working Group on Patent Laws New Delhi, India Navdanya New Delhi, India Netzwerk Freies Wissen Berlin, Germany Paradise Hospital Port Moresby, Papau New Guinea People's Coalition for Media Reform Seoul, Korea Phasuma Consultancy & Training Amsterdam, The Netherlands Positive Malaysian Treatment Access & Advocacy Group (MTAAG+). Malaysia Privacy Activism USA Privacy Rights Clearinghouse San Diego, CA, USA Public Knowledge Washington, DC, USA Rural Reconstruction Nepal (RRN) Kathmandu, Nepal Social movement to combat private media ownership and enhance public media Korea Student Global AIDS Campaign USA Swisslinux.org Mayens-de-Chamoson, Switzerland The Transparency and Accountability Network New York, NY, USA Third World Network Malaysia Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) UK, USA U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Washington, DC, USA Women & Health ! (WAH ! ) India **Individuals** Jamie Acosta, PhD, LCSW, CHES Miami, FL, USA Mr. Jose L. Aguilar Justice and Peace Commission Mexico City, Mexico Beate Amler Trade Union Researcher Berlin, Germany Professor Brook K. Baker Northeastern University School of Law Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy Boston, MA, USA Gladys Baldew Public Health Consultant Netherlands Laurel Baldwin-Ragaven, MD Asylum Hill Family Practice Center Hartford, CT, USA Murtala Bello Pharmacist, Ministry of Health Sokoto, Nigeria Jennifer Bruenger Reference Librarian & Education Program Coordinator Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering & Technology Mission, KS, USA Erin Burns Former National Organizer, Student Global AIDS Campaign (SGAC) Jacksonville, FL, USA Sylvia Caras, PhD Santa Cruz, CA, USA Ramon Certeza Director for Education, Research and Industrial Relations Confederation of Labor and Allied Social Services (CLASS) Manila, Philippines Sae-Rom Chae University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine Chicago, IL, USA Jeff Chester Executive Director Center for Digital Democracy Washington, DC, USA Don Christie President New Zealand Open Source Society Mark R. Costa Clay, NY, USA Chris Curry MD/PhD Candidate Loyola University Chicago Forest Park, IL, USA Dr Gopal Dabade President, Drug Action Forum - Karnataka Dharwad, India Anke Dahrendorf, LLM Junior Researcher, International and European Law University of Maastricht, The Netherlands Daniel de Beer, PhD Lecturer in Law Université Saint Louis Brussels, Belgium Dr. Gilles de Wildt Jiggins Lane Medical Centre Birmingham, UK John Dillon Program Coordinator KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives Toronto, Canada Dr. David Egilman, MD, MPH Clinical Associate Professor Brown University Attleboro, MA, USA Professor Peter Evans Department of Sociology University of California, Berkeley, USA Thomas Alured Faunce Assoc. Professor, College of Law Assoc. Professor, Medical School, College of Medicine and Health Sciences Australian National University Canberra, Australia Professor Brian Fitzgerald Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law Faculty Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia Professor Sean Flynn Associate Director Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property American University Washington College of Law Washington DC, USA Maurice J. Freedman Past President, American Library Association Mount Kisco, NY, USA Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce Law University of Ottawa, Canada Jonathan Walter Giehl Ocala, Florida, USA Johnny Jesus Guaylupo PLWHA Brooklyn, NY, USA Dr. Chandra M. Gulhati Editor, Monthly Index of Medical Specialities (MIMS) New Delhi, India Mark W. Heffington, MD Cashiers, NC, USA Matthew Herder Visiting Professor of Law Loyola University Chicago Chicago, IL, USA Maggie Huff-Rousselle Chair, Pharmaceuticals Interest Working Group American Public Health Association Boston, MA, USA Doug Ireland, Journalist New York, NY, USA Professor S. Jayasundar, PhD Pharmacology Chennai, India Dr. K.R. John Dept. of Community Health Christian Medical College Vellore, India Puja Kapai Assistant Professor Faculty of Law The University of Hong Kong Alison Katz People’s Health Movement and Centre Europe Tiers Monde Geneva, Switzerland Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee, Ph.D. Chair, Social Pharmacy Research Unit (SPR) Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, Thailand Professor Heinz Klug University of Wisconsin Law School Madison, WI, USA Senior Honorary Research Associate, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South Africa Adam M. Kost University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine Chicago, IL, USA Professor Joel Lexchin, MD York University Toronto, Canada Jiraporn Limpananont, PhD Social Pharmacy Research Unit Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, Thailand Nicholas J. Lusiani International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ESCR-Net / Red-DESC / Réseau-DESC New York, NY, USA Hamish MacEwan Open ICT Consultant Wellington, New Zealand Dr. Duncan Matthews Reader in Intellectual Property Law School of Law Queen Mary, University of London United Kingdom Eduardo Mayorga ALAFAR (Ecuadorian Generic Pharmaceutical Association) Quito, Ecuador Dr. Jeni McAughey Whitehead, Northern Ireland Prof. David Menkes Waikato Clinical School University of Auckland Hamilton, New Zealand Mr. T. Mikindo, B.Pharms, MSc Pharmacist Ifakara Health Institute Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania Adrienne Mishkin Tulane University School of Medicine and School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine MD/MPH candidate, Class of 2009 New Orleans, LA, USA Isameldin M.A. Mustafa, B.Pharm The Director of Pharmaceutical Services Department National Health Insurance Fund Khartoum, Sudan Ibraheem Naeem Medical student Lahore, Pakistan Dr. Pat Neuwelt Public Health Physician and Professor Mt. Albert, Auckland, New Zealand Ahti Otala Espoo, Finland Frank Ottey Media, PA, USA Kevin Outterson Associate Professor of Law & Director of the Health Law Program Boston University School of Law Boston, MA, USA Dr. Carol Parlow Oakville, Canada Dr. Peter Parry Consultant Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist Senior Lecturer, Flinders University Oaklands Pk, Australia Ngufor Forkum Polycarp, BA, MEd, MA, DEA, Dip-ENSP, LLM Human Rights Training Unit Police Training School Yaounde, Cameroon Joana Ramos, MSW Cancer Resources & Advocacy Seattle, WA, USA Nicolas Rasmussen, MPhil, PhD, MPH Associate Professor National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia Dr. Amitrajit Saha New Delhi, India A. Sankar Executive Director EMPOWER Tuticorin, India Dr. Canan Sargin, MD UNICEF Ankara, Turkey Dr. Gordon Schiff Associate Director, Center for Patient Safety Research and Practice Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, MA, USA Claudio Schuftan, MD People’s Health Movement Vietnam Professor Susan K. Sell George Washington University Washington, DC USA Melissa Serrano Researcher University of the Phillippines Manila, Philippines Aaron Shaw Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Dr. Mira Shiva, MD Coordinator, Initiative for Health, Equity and Society Founding Member, People's Health Movement New Delhi, India Dr. Vandana Shiva Navdanya New Delhi, India Beverley Snell Essential Medicines and Community Health Specialist Centre for International Health Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health Melbourne, Australia Wilma Teran Pharmaceutical Biochemist, Public Health Platform on Access to Medicines and Intellectual Property La Paz, Bolivia Clinton Henry Trout, MPH Candidate for Doctor of Public Health Boston University Boston, MA, USA Karolina Tuomisto Medical Student Helsinki, Finland Mike Waghorne Retired Former Assistant General Secretary Public Services International Esquibien, France Richard Walther Alexandria, Virginia, USA Professor Kimberlee Weatherall TC Beirne School of Law The University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia Patricia Whelehan, PhD Professor, Anthropology State University of New York-Potsdam Potsdam, NY, USA Edlira Xhafa Researcher Education International Nyon, Switzerland Julie M. Zito, PhD Professor, Pharmacoepidemiology University of Maryland, Baltimore Baltimore, MD, USA ------------- OPENNESS IN TRADE AND OTHER MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS Negotiating texts are commonly made public in multilateral trade negotiation, although some trade negotiations are characterized by secrecy. Examples of negotiations where texts are or were made public include: * The current Doha Round negotiations at the World Trade Organization; http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm * The Free Trade Area of the Americas; http://www.ftaa-alca.org/FTAADraft03/Index_e.asp * The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (although initial texts were not made public) http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3343,en_2649_33783766_1894819_1_1_1_1,00.html * Draft text at the World Health Organization, where resolutions are published in advance of consideration and treaty or treaty-like negotiations are handled openly, including this example of follow-on negotiations for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: http://www.who.int/gb/fctc/ * The World Intellectual Property Organization, including this example of a draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=57213 --- Sarah Rimmington Attorney Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project Washington, DC Tel: (202) 387-8030 Cell: (202) 422-2687 www.essentialaction.org/access/ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 15 01:19:55 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:19:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's Privacy Reform Message-ID: <48CDF07A.50C652A2@ix.netcom.com> David and all, David, regarding your response to Fouad. We really don't know what Google has done in regards to cooperation with other governments for a fact. What we do know is that Google has used the data it has collected from it's search engine users for the USDOJ. Therefore one can extrapolate, but not for certain, that Google has also done similar with other countries citizens that have used it's collected data. The much more important question is, should they have, if they did, and under what circumstances? If they were issued a court order to do so and didn't step up/stand up for their users privacy rights, should they have? I say yes. Others of course may, and likely do, disagree. But frankly, the best thing Google can, and in my opinion should do is not to collect PII information from any of it's users. As such, and if a "Internet Bill of Rights" where privacy is a key right that cannot be abridged or marginalized, such changes in operation of companies like Google is necessary for such rights to be recognized and realized fully. Further, and additionally what will also be needed if a "Internet Bill of Rights" where privacy is a key right that cannot be abridged or marginalized is to be recognized and fully realized, citizens/users of the Internet will need to be very vocal and insistant in letting their government officials and elected representatives know that they don't want their Pii spread all over the place helter skelter or released, shared, or other wise used in any way without their expressed written permission. Users need a legalized Opt-out provision that is very inclusive for this to work, or strong legal statutes, and/or changes in their respective countries Constitutions will be necessary. Semper Fi, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 00:33:47 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:33:47 -0600 Subject: [governance] For a real impact of IGF in least developed countries In-Reply-To: <48CC24EB.60502@panos-ao.org> References: <48CC24EB.60502@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: Hi Ken, One eventual way that Internet Rights(1) can help on least developed countries is by giving a bank account (2) to every person, where this bank account is connected or related to public and non public entities that help needed persons, to avoid duplication of efforts and maximize transparency and efficiency. More here: http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/project_overview_latest.pdf (1) Having a bank account is considered a human right, in the virtual personality human right being studied t the Costa Rican Congress. http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/PROYECTO%20PERSONALIDAD%20VIRTUAL.doc (Spanish) (2) A bank account is an expression of a virtual personality, even if it is not on the Internet. Best regards, Jaco On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Ken Lohento wrote: > For your information - KL > > --- > > The African civil society for the information society (ACSIS) submitted a > contribution to IGF within the framework of the preparation of the India > meeting. The contribution targets the draft programme in discussion but > also general issues around IGF. Some of its comments are directed to stakeholders > in general (including Africans) > > The title of the contribution in English is: "For a real impact of IGF in > least developed countries" > > It includes, among other, recommendations or concerns such as: > > - IGF's impact in Africa is hardly seen so far > > - the need to decisively make efforts to make the IGF useful to developing > countries - establishing permanent thematic working groups, provide > supplementary resources to the secretariat, find more resources for > participation, etc. > - the review of IGF should give opportunity to analyze IGF impacts on LDCs > and a multilingual approach should be followed for this review in order to > include all stakeholders > - the need to consolidate and give more visibility to 'best practice fora' > that potentially favor the reinforcement of capacities of the global South. > - a proposal to publish results of the IGF (in print and or electronic > documents : manuel/collection of best practices, etc.) with particular > attention to results useful to DCs > - regarding theme 2 of the draft programme, the replacement of « Promoting > cybersecurity, and Trust" by « Promoting cybersecurity, and Freedom of > expression on the Internet" to also give more visibility to human rights > issues along with security issues > - the need to have important information in UN languages on the website > - a appeal should be made to LDCs's governments in the final documents > produced at Hyderabad, for them to initiate/strengthen/support national > IG(F) processes for the consolidation of IG for Development in those > countries > > - the need to strengthen remote participation mechanisms > > - the need to discuss norms and standards in India > > - an appeal to African stakeholders to better contribute within the > framework of the IGF to the promotion and consolidations of the IG(F) on the > continent > - a proposal of a meeting of CS on IGF prior to Egypt 2009 to discuss IGF > role and impact. > > etc. > > The document is in French. > > 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 > > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 00:44:19 2008 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:44:19 -0600 Subject: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper [General comments, only!] In-Reply-To: <48C8E446.7010404@gmx.at> References: <20080911043957.36A55E1F36@smtp3.electricembers.net> <48C8E446.7010404@gmx.at> Message-ID: Hi Matthias and all, Thanks for your email and please let me continue the interesting exchange you are proposing in your number 4 paragraph.... The Internet Rights(1) being studied at the Costa Rican Congress are: 1. Existence. 2. Presence. 3. Content. 4. Projection. I believe many people in this mailing list can contribute to make the Virtual Personality fundamental right amendment(1), a better one. Many thanks in advance for any critic, help and advice. Best regards, Jaco (1) http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/PROYECTO%20PERSONALIDAD%20VIRTUAL.doc (spanish) http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/Congress%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Costa%20Rica.doc (bad English translation) On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann wrote: > Dear all, > > [please note that this posting does not suggest any substantive changes, > but rather dicusses some general aspects of the debate and attempts to > clarify what we perceive as misunderstandings of human rights law that > emerged during the debate. If you're busy, you can save the message and > reflect over it during the weekend.] > > while we cannot address all aspects of the discussion led on the list, we – > as international lawyers and human rights experts – feel that the debate > that has taken place over the last days (while leading to a statement that > we feel mentions some highly relevant issues concerning human rights in the > Internet) has not always served the purpose it purported to serve: > clarifying our commitment to the protection of human rights on the Internet. > > Let us therefore draw your attention to the following general points, some > of which have been taken up by Parminder in yesterday's message of 07:51 > GMT+1. > > 1. The often acrimonious debates on the primacy of individual over > collective rights and of first over second and third dimension/generation of > human rights lead us nowhere. In fact, most serious human rights literature > has discarded the notion of generation of rights as an ideological concept > developed against the backdrop of the Cold War. It serves no purpose to > attempt to renew these debates. Let us keep them buried. > > 2. Already the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is expressly > mentioned by the Tunis Agenda, has integrated individual as well as (some) > collective rights into his catalogue of rights. Further, in the Vienna > Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993 the international community > highlighted that "[a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and > interdependent and interrelated." (UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23 of 12 July 1993, > para. 5). Any attempt to divide human rights into rights with more and > rights with less significance runs contrary to the spirit of the Vienna > Declaration and the UDHR. The states assembled in Vienna 15 years ago agreed > that "[t]he international community must treat human rights globally in a > fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis." The > same is true for our community of scholars and practitioners interested in > the role of – all – human rights on the Internet. > > 3. Rights without remedies exist. A right does not cease to exist if it is > violated. Even if some rights, such as the right to education, can be > realized only progressively, they have, nevertheless, real implications for > governments. These include, e.g., the obligation to ensure effectively the > enjoyment of – at least – the minimum content of the right, in a > non-discriminatory fashion, and to progressively enhance the level of > enjoyment. And of course: the right to work does not imply a right to a > specific job, but rather a right to enter into the socio-economic activities > necessary to live a dignified life. > > 4. Declaring a "right to the Internet" seems like a attractive, simple > and inspiring concept, but a closer look reveals that the concept involves a > number of different (and sometimes competing) human rights. Should it be a > right to Internet access? A right to e-literacy? A right to content in one's > own language. These are questions we need to clarify first – and we need to > clarify them urgently. Creating new rights does not bring us closer to > ensuring respect for, and the protection of, human rights in Internet > Governance. A serious, unapologetically honest debate, however, does. > > 5. A member of our list has suggested that "[w]omen do no have special > rights because of the nature of their sex. Women have rights because they > are individuals." This principle of equality as formally expressed in law, > without differentiation between women and men, often implies hidden > discrimination against women. Due to the different positions and roles that > society constructs for women and men "de iure" equality often results in "de > facto" discrimination. Therefore any discussion on the human rights of women > presupposes an in-depth analysis of the concepts of difference, disadvantage > and discrimination in the context of pluralizing societies and should be > based on a substantive definition of equality that takes into account the > societal definition of gender as contained in Article 7 of the Statute of > the ICC and the groundbreaking work of the committee under the UN Convention > on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). > > As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights celebrates its 60th > anniversary on 10 December 2008, let us look beyond the ideological debates > of the past and enter into a human rights dicourse that can provide answers > to the challenges of the future: This necessitates a holistic concept of > human rights. The language of our synthesis paper should reflect this > commitment – and the compromise language now seems to do so. > > Wolfgang and Matthias > > PS: Should you feel the need for a short introduction into the concept of > human rights and its fundamental notions, feel free to consult, e.g., > Wolfgang Benedek (ed.), Understanding Human Rights. Manual on Human Rights > Education, 2nd edition, Berlin/Antwerp/Vienna: BWV/Intersentia/NWV, 2006. > > The book is also available online in 14 languages at > http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=704. > > The English version can be found at > http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=446 > -- > > Professor Dr. Wolfgang Benedek > Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann > > Institute of International Law and International Relations > University of Graz, Austria > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria > > T +43 316 380 6711 (office) > F +43 316 380 9455 (fax) > > E wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > E matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Jaco Aizenman L. My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 02:11:36 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:11:36 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" -UN & In-Reply-To: <48CDAC4A.F0AEA93C@ix.netcom.com> References: <701af9f70809150310l7c46850ax310ba25a6662d47b@mail.gmail.com> <48CDAC4A.F0AEA93C@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70809152311r329834dau55de76c322a5d6e2@mail.gmail.com> Hmm, true, but now that this is happening, we should interact at some level and intervene on this issue. Now, will the CS Caucus have a stand against it or in favor of it and will it bring up this issue during the IGF Hyderabad or Cairo? What are the possible statements and evidence for defence that we can unsurface if we are to pursue this avenue? I was expecting more input from the rest of the members as well. There is evident need for us to take some interest in it? Fouad On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Fouad and all, > > I did mention this earlier. But as some know whom have > some experiance with the ITU, that that standards body has > been interested in desiring to go this direction for several > years now. They have also had serious disagreements with > their main standards rival, the IETF as well, see: > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html?netht=083007dailynews1&&nladname=083107dailynews > > > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> All members of the CS Caucus should be aware of this..............is >> it really possible to do so! Well they are eventually doing it and I >> wasn't expecting ITU to be at the heart of this and I wonder why no >> one in CS Caucus mentioned this earlier, well its happening now: >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 >> >> Plz read below the signature for the original message: >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:40:42 +0200 >> From: Alberto Barrionuevo >> Subject: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" >> To: public >> >> This article argues that UN & ITU plan to remove anonomity from Internet by >> proposal of China via a standard workgroup called "IP Traceback" (its name is >> descriptive enough): >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 >> >> Saludos, >> -- >> Alberto Barrionuevo >> President FFII >> www.ffii.org >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bxl mailing list >> bxl at ffii.org >> https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/bxl >> >> End of bxl Digest, Vol 50, Issue 4 >> ********************************** >> >> -- >> >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 15 04:48:30 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:48:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world"-UN & References: <701af9f70809150310l7c46850ax310ba25a6662d47b@mail.gmail.com> <48CDAC4A.F0AEA93C@ix.netcom.com> <701af9f70809152311r329834dau55de76c322a5d6e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CE215D.D2A68645@ix.netcom.com> Fouad and all, May I humbly suggest that one way to deal with the ITU is to recognize them for what they are AND what they represent. Meaning, if any proposed standard that the ITU proports that wasn't open for public review and approval cannot become a standard, including free and unfettered access to ALL of the relevant documentation. The IETF has, and has had many problems to be sure, but it's process in developing standards is far superior to the ITU's at present, yet even so, the IETF's process could be greatly improved and far more transparent. Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hmm, true, but now that this is happening, we should interact at some > level and intervene on this issue. Now, will the CS Caucus have a > stand against it or in favor of it and will it bring up this issue > during the IGF Hyderabad or Cairo? > > What are the possible statements and evidence for defence that we can > unsurface if we are to pursue this avenue? I was expecting more input > from the rest of the members as well. There is evident need for us to > take some interest in it? > > Fouad > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > Fouad and all, > > > > I did mention this earlier. But as some know whom have > > some experiance with the ITU, that that standards body has > > been interested in desiring to go this direction for several > > years now. They have also had serious disagreements with > > their main standards rival, the IETF as well, see: > > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html?netht=083007dailynews1&&nladname=083107dailynews > > > > > > > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > >> All members of the CS Caucus should be aware of this..............is > >> it really possible to do so! Well they are eventually doing it and I > >> wasn't expecting ITU to be at the heart of this and I wonder why no > >> one in CS Caucus mentioned this earlier, well its happening now: > >> > >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 > >> > >> Plz read below the signature for the original message: > >> > >> Fouad Bajwa > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:40:42 +0200 > >> From: Alberto Barrionuevo > >> Subject: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" > >> To: public > >> > >> This article argues that UN & ITU plan to remove anonomity from Internet by > >> proposal of China via a standard workgroup called "IP Traceback" (its name is > >> descriptive enough): > >> > >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0 > >> > >> Saludos, > >> -- > >> Alberto Barrionuevo > >> President FFII > >> www.ffii.org > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> bxl mailing list > >> bxl at ffii.org > >> https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/bxl > >> > >> End of bxl Digest, Vol 50, Issue 4 > >> ********************************** > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Regards. > >> -------------------------- > >> Fouad Bajwa > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Regards, > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > Updated 1/26/04 > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Yrjo.Lansipuro at formin.fi Tue Sep 16 05:29:35 2008 From: Yrjo.Lansipuro at formin.fi (Lansipuro Yrjo) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:29:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" -UN & In-Reply-To: <701af9f70809152311r329834dau55de76c322a5d6e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: 16. syyskuuta 2008 9:12 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" -UN & Hmm, true, but now that this is happening, we should interact at some level and intervene on this issue. Now, will the CS Caucus have a stand against it or in favor of it and will it bring up this issue during the IGF Hyderabad or Cairo? What are the possible statements and evidence for defence that we can unsurface if we are to pursue this avenue? I was expecting more input from the rest of the members as well. There is evident need for us to take some interest in it? Fouad On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Fouad and all, > > I did mention this earlier. But as some know whom have > some experiance with the ITU, that that standards body has > been interested in desiring to go this direction for several > years now. They have also had serious disagreements with > their main standards rival, the IETF as well, see: > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/083007-mpls.html?netht=083007daily news1&&nladname=083107dailynews > > > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> All members of the CS Caucus should be aware of this..............is >> it really possible to do so! Well they are eventually doing it and I >> wasn't expecting ITU to be at the heart of this and I wonder why no >> one in CS Caucus mentioned this earlier, well its happening now: >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesAr ea.0 >> >> Plz read below the signature for the original message: >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:40:42 +0200 >> From: Alberto Barrionuevo >> Subject: UN & ITU: "A Chinese Internet for the world" >> To: public >> >> This article argues that UN & ITU plan to remove anonomity from Internet by >> proposal of China via a standard workgroup called "IP Traceback" (its name is >> descriptive enough): >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesAr ea.0 >> >> Saludos, >> -- >> Alberto Barrionuevo >> President FFII >> www.ffii.org >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bxl mailing list >> bxl at ffii.org >> https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/bxl >> >> End of bxl Digest, Vol 50, Issue 4 >> ********************************** >> >> -- >> >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 16 08:03:15 2008 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:03:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: SV: IGC statement for open consultation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426284@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080913220330.EED55A6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426284@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: May I suggest some different perspective? To begin, it is worth to note that _all_ activities start as 'bottoms up' - someone's bright, new idea. It is the next part that is fateful: does the new effort develop some coherence, and thus begin to produce the results of joint effort, perhaps even significant collaborative work and important or profound results? That affects in two ways here: For one, to mix the three sectors together in a DC is only the beginning. They then have to find enough of a working method so that they get into harness with each other, at least for the task in hand. Only then - with some coherence - may they produce results. But beyond an individual DC, all the same holds for IGF, itself. To put it less happily, a cacophony of heterogeneous 'results' from DC's may not make any coherence for IGF. Nor will cacophony endear IGF to those who must engage it. Or, to put it more positively, IGF itself needs to achieve some coherence, if it is to produce some result. Of course all this necessarily begs a question of 'what results are the aim?' And this of course is a long, debated, hotly political matter. That however, does not change the fact that 'where are we going' is the bottom line. As a friend once said, if we don't know where we are going, any road will take us there. As to whether this matters: We have just heard, from the floor of the consultation, two commentators, that there remains a question whether governments will engage. This is three years into a total of five. And governments start out with the power. Whether they engage has pivotal effect on outcomes. Not the least, whether there is actual multi-stakeholderism. DC's have of course served in an excellent way, to bring the parties together. To get something done is going to require something additional, effort across time. That means working groups. Working groups within a DC are their own, individual affair. For IGF as a whole, that also means working groups. That of course is a hot-potato topic - addressed elsewhere. David At 11:15 AM +0200 9/14/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >The Dynamic Coaliations (IGF-DC) are real innovations in international policy making. The big difference to "Working Groups" we know from the UN is the open multistakeholder composition, the bottom up approach and the flexible procedures. One of the key procedureal discussion point is now, as I can see it, should we formalize IGF-DCs or not? I think it is too early to push the IGF-DCs into a formal procedure. We have too less experiences and best practices so far. We need a little bit patience and have to wait how the bottom up discussion works and which outcomes are produced. For the moment the only thing I would propose is to define a set of criteria under which a group can be call itself an IGF-DC. Openess, multistakeholder, bottom up, transparent, related to the WSIS process could be some of 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 16 10:10:22 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:10:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU work on IP traceback Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E890@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Here are some more sources of information about the development of the standard directly from the ITU Note two things: 1) this is real. 2) the impetus for it cannot be blamed entirely on China, as some journalists imply, the US Defense Dept and Cisco and VeriSign are also involved. http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/WSIS/3rd_meeting_docs/Rutkowski _IPtraceback_callerID_rev0.pdf http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=en&parent=T05-SG17-070416-TD&q uestion=Q6/17 --Milton Mueller ________________________________ From: expression-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:expression-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:53 PM To: expression at ipjustice.org Cc: Laura DeNardis; Nick Dearden; nicholas.dearden at amnesty.org Subject: [Expression] Fwd: [oni] U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity Colleagues, Below is a concerning story about the ITU and the NSA working together to dismantle Internet anonymity via technical standards despite the well-recognized right to anonymous speech in international treaties and national constitutions. I'd like to see this Free Expression Dynamic Coalition explore this issue further in Hyderabad. Has anyone else heard about this initiative or have any information about it? Can this report be confirmed? Thanks, Robin ---------- Forwarded Message --------- Subject: [oni] U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity Date: Friday, 12 September 2008 From: Rafal Rohozinski To: "oni at eon.law.harvard.edu Initiative" < oni at eon.law.harvard.edu> September 12, 2008 4:00 AM PDT U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity Posted by Declan McCullagh A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the "IP Traceback" drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public. The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has alarmed some technologists and privacy advocates. Also affected may be services such as the Tor anonymizing network. "What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been any real consideration of how this type of capability could be misused," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. "That's really a human rights concern." Nearly everyone agrees that there are, at least in some circumstances, legitimate security reasons to uncover the source of Internet communications. The most common justification for tracebacks is to counter distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks. But implementation details are important, and governments participating in the process -- organized by the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency -- may have their own agendas. A document submitted by China this spring and obtained by CNET News said the "IP traceback mechanism is required to be adapted to various network environments, such as different addressing (IPv4 and IPv6), different access methods (wire and wireless) and different access technologies (ADSL, cable, Ethernet) and etc." It adds: "To ensure traceability, essential information of the originator should be logged." The Chinese author of the document, Huirong Tian, did not respond to repeated interview requests. Neither did Jiayong Chen of China's state- owned ZTE Corporation, the vice chairman of the Q6/17's parent group who suggested in an April 2007 meeting that it address IP traceback. A second, apparently leaked ITU document offers surveillance and monitoring justifications that seem well-suited to repressive regimes: Steve Bellovin (Credit: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org) A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author. That document was provided to Steve Bellovin, a well-known Columbia University computer scientist, Internet Engineering Steering Group member, and Internet Engineering Task Force participant who wrote a traceback proposal eight years ago. Bellovin says he received the ITU document as part of a ZIP file from someone he knows and trusts, and subsequently confirmed its authenticity through a second source. (An ITU representative disputed its authenticity but refused to make public the Q6/17 documents, including a ZIP file describing traceback requirements posted on the agency's password-protected Web site.) Bellovin said in a blog post this week that "institutionalizing a means for governments to quash their opposition is in direct contravention" of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He said that traceback is no longer that useful a concept, on the grounds that few attacks use spoofed addresses, there are too many sources in a DDoS attack to be useful, and the source computer inevitably would prove to be hacked into anyway. Another technologist, Jacob Appelbaum, one of the developers of the Tor anonymity system, also was alarmed. "The technical nature of this 'feature' is such a beast that it cannot and will not see the light of day on the Internet," Appelbaum said. "If such a system was deployed, it would be heavily abused by precisely those people that it would supposedly trace. No blackhat would ever be caught by this." Jacob Appelbaum (Credit: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org) Adding to speculation about where the U.N. agency is heading are indications that some members would like to curb Internet anonymity more broadly: An ITU network security meeting a few years ago concluded that anonymity should not be permitted. The summary said: "Anonymity was considered as an important problem on the Internet (may lead to criminality). Privacy is required but we should make sure that it is provided by pseudonymity rather than anonymity." A presentation in July from Korea's Heung-youl Youm said that groups such as the IETF should be "required to develop standards or guidelines" that could "facilitate tracing the source of an attacker including IP-level traceback, application-level traceback, user-level traceback." Another Korean proposal -- which has not been made public -- says all Internet providers "should have procedures to assist in the lawful traceback of security incidents." An early ITU proposal from RAD Data Communications in Israel said: "Traceability means that all future networks should enable source trace-back, while accountability signifies the responsibility of account providers to demand some reasonable form of identification before granting access to network resources (similar to what banks do before opening a bank accounts)." Multinational push to curb anonymous speech By itself, of course, the U.N. has no power to impose Internet standards on anyone. But U.N. and ITU officials have been lobbying for more influence over the way the Internet is managed, most prominently through the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia and a followup series of meetings. The official charter of the ITU's Q6/17 group says that it will work "in collaboration" with the IETF and the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center, which could provide a path toward widespread adoption -- especially if national governments end up embracing the idea. Patrick Bomgardner, the NSA's chief of public and media affairs, told CNET News on Thursday that "we have no information to provide on this issue." He would not say why the NSA was participating in the process (and whether it was trying to fulfill its intelligence-gathering mission or its other role of advancing information security). Toby Johnson, a communications officer with the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau in Geneva, also refused to discuss Q6/17. "It may be difficult for experts to comment on what state deliberations are in for fear of prejudicing the outcome," he said in an e-mail message on Thursday. U.N. "IP traceback" documents China's proposal obtained by CNET News says "to ensure traceability, essential information of the originator should be logged." Leaked requirements document says governments may need "to identify the source of the negative articles" posted by political adversaries. Korean presentation says standards bodies should be "required to develop standards or guidelines" to facilitate unmasking users. Verisign executive's summarysummarizes presentation saying protocols must have "a strong traceback capability, and establishing traceback considerations in developing any new standards." When asked about the impact on Internet anonymity, Johnson replied: "I am not fully acquainted with this topic and therefore not qualified to provide an answer." He said that he expects that any final ITU standard would comport with the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's unclear what happens next. For one thing, the traceback proposal isn't scheduled to be finished until 2009, and one industry source stressed that not all members of Q6/17 are in favor of it. The five "editors" are: NSA's Richard Brackney; Tian Huirong from China's telecommunications ministry; Korea's Youm Heung-Youl; Cisco's Gregg Schudel; and Craig Schultz, who works for a Japan-based network security provider. (In keeping with the NSA's penchant for secrecy, Brackney was the lone ITU participant in a 2006 working group who failed to provide biographical information.) In response to a question about the eventual result, Schultz, one of the editors, replied: "The long answer is, as you can probably imagine, this subject can get a little 'tense.' The main issue is the protection of privacy as well as not having to rely on 'policy' as part of a process. A secondary issue is feasibility and cost versus benefit." He said a final recommendation is at least a year off. Another participant is Tony Rutkowski, Verisign's vice president for regulatory affairs and longtime ITU attendee, who wrote a three-page summary for IP traceback and a related concept called "International Caller-ID Capability." In a series of e-mail messages, Rutkowski defended the creation of the IP traceback "work item" at a meeting in April, and disputed the legitimacy of the document posted by Bellovin. "The political motivation text was not part of any known ITU-T proposal and certainly not the one which I helped facilitate," he wrote. Rutkowski added in a separate message: "In public networks, the capability of knowing the source of traffic has been built into protocols and administration since 1850! It's widely viewed as essential for settlements, network management, and infrastructure protection purposes. The motivations are the same here. The OSI Internet protocols (IPv5) had the capabilities built-in. The ARPA Internet left them out because the infrastructure was a private DOD infrastructure." Because the Internet Protocol was not designed to be traceable, it's possible to spoof addresses -- both for legitimate reasons, such as sharing a single address on a home network, and for malicious ones as well. In the early part of the decade, a flurry of academic research focused on ways to perform IP tracebacks, perhaps byembedding origin information in Internet communications, or Bellovin's suggestion of occasionally automatically forwarding those data in a separate message. If network providers and the IETF adopted IP traceback on their own, perhaps on the grounds that security justifications outweighed the harm to privacy and anonymity, that would be one thing. But in the United States, a formal legal requirement to adopt IP traceback would run up against the First Amendment. A series of court cases, including the 1995 decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, provides a powerful shield protecting the right to remain anonymous. In that case, the majority ruled: "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." More broadly, the ITU's own constitution talks about "ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence." And the Council of Europe's Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet adopted in 2003 says nations "should respect the will of users of the Internet not to disclose their identity," while acknowledging law enforcement- related tracing is sometimes necessary. "When NSA takes the lead on standard-setting, you have to ask yourself how much is about security and how much is about surveillance," said the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Rotenberg. "You would think (the ITU) would be a little more sensitive to spying on Internet users with the cooperation of the NSA and the Chinese government." ------------------------------------------------------- -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e:robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 30991 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19056 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7382 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 16 10:38:11 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:38:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] ITU work on IP traceback In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E890@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E890@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48CFC4D3.30609@rits.org.br> Milton, I managed to catch the first document but not the second (which actually seems a list of restricted work in progress). --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > Here are some more sources of information about the development of the > standard directly from the ITU > > Note two things: 1) this is real. 2) the impetus for it cannot be blamed > entirely on China, as some journalists imply, the US Defense Dept and > Cisco and VeriSign are also involved. > > > > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/WSIS/3rd_meeting_docs/Rutkowski > _IPtraceback_callerID_rev0.pdf > > > > http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=en&parent=T05-SG17-070416-TD&q > uestion=Q6/17 > > > > --Milton Mueller > > > > ________________________________ > > From: expression-bounces at ipjustice.org > [mailto:expression-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:53 PM > To: expression at ipjustice.org > Cc: Laura DeNardis; Nick Dearden; nicholas.dearden at amnesty.org > Subject: [Expression] Fwd: [oni] U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet > anonymity > > > > Colleagues, > > > > Below is a concerning story about the ITU and the NSA working together > to dismantle Internet anonymity via technical standards despite the > well-recognized right to anonymous speech in international treaties and > national constitutions. > > > > I'd like to see this Free Expression Dynamic Coalition explore this > issue further in Hyderabad. > > > > Has anyone else heard about this initiative or have any information > about it? Can this report be confirmed? > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded Message --------- > > Subject: [oni] U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity > > Date: Friday, 12 September 2008 > > From: Rafal Rohozinski > > To: "oni at eon.law.harvard.edu Initiative" < > oni at eon.law.harvard.edu> > > > > September 12, 2008 4:00 AM PDT > > U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity > > Posted by Declan McCullagh > > > > > > A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, > > > proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing > the > > original source of Internet communications and potentially > curbing the > > ability of users to remain anonymous. > > > > The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the > "IP > > Traceback" drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next > week in > > Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have > > declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to > the > > public. > > The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain > anonymous, > > which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in > > > international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has > alarmed > > some technologists and privacy advocates. Also affected may be > > services such as the Tor anonymizing network. > > "What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been > any > > real consideration of how this type of capability could be > misused," > > said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy > Information > > Center in Washington, D.C. "That's really a human rights > concern." > > Nearly everyone agrees that there are, at least in some > circumstances, > > legitimate security reasons to uncover the source of Internet > > communications. The most common justification for tracebacks is > to > > counter distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks. > > But implementation details are important, and governments > > participating in the process -- organized by the International > > Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency -- may have their own > agendas. > > A document submitted by China this spring and obtained by CNET > News > > said the "IP traceback mechanism is required to be adapted to > various > > network environments, such as different addressing (IPv4 and > IPv6), > > different access methods (wire and wireless) and different > access > > technologies (ADSL, cable, Ethernet) and etc." It adds: "To > ensure > > traceability, essential information of the originator should be > logged." > > The Chinese author of the document, Huirong Tian, did not > respond to > > repeated interview requests. Neither did Jiayong Chen of China's > state- > > owned ZTE Corporation, the vice chairman of the Q6/17's parent > group > > who suggested in an April 2007 meeting that it address IP > traceback. > > A second, apparently leaked ITU document offers surveillance and > > > monitoring justifications that seem well-suited to repressive > regimes: > > > > Steve Bellovin > > (Credit: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org) > > > > A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting > the > > government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law > > > against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the > negative > > articles but the articles having been published via a proxy > server, is > > unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author. > > > > That document was provided to Steve Bellovin, a well-known > Columbia > > University computer scientist, Internet Engineering Steering > Group > > member, and Internet Engineering Task Force participant who > wrote a > > traceback proposal eight years ago. Bellovin says he received > the ITU > > document as part of a ZIP file from someone he knows and trusts, > and > > subsequently confirmed its authenticity through a second source. > (An > > ITU representative disputed its authenticity but refused to make > > > public the Q6/17 documents, including a ZIP file describing > traceback > > requirements posted on the agency's password-protected Web > site.) > > Bellovin said in a blog post this week that "institutionalizing > a > > means for governments to quash their opposition is in direct > > contravention" of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human > > Rights. He said that traceback is no longer that useful a > concept, on > > the grounds that few attacks use spoofed addresses, there are > too many > > sources in a DDoS attack to be useful, and the source computer > > inevitably would prove to be hacked into anyway. > > Another technologist, Jacob Appelbaum, one of the developers of > the > > Tor anonymity system, also was alarmed. "The technical nature of > this > > 'feature' is such a beast that it cannot and will not see the > light of > > day on the Internet," Appelbaum said. "If such a system was > deployed, > > it would be heavily abused by precisely those people that it > would > > supposedly trace. No blackhat would ever be caught by this." > > > > Jacob Appelbaum > > (Credit: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org) > > Adding to speculation about where the U.N. agency is heading are > > > indications that some members would like to curb Internet > anonymity > > more broadly: > > An ITU network security meeting a few years ago concluded that > > anonymity should not be permitted. The summary said: "Anonymity > was > > considered as an important problem on the Internet (may lead to > > criminality). Privacy is required but we should make sure that > it is > > provided by pseudonymity rather than anonymity." > > A presentation in July from Korea's Heung-youl Youm said that > > groups such as the IETF should be "required to develop standards > or > > guidelines" that could "facilitate tracing the source of an > attacker > > including IP-level traceback, application-level traceback, > user-level > > traceback." Another Korean proposal -- which has not been made > public > > -- says all Internet providers "should have procedures to assist > in > > the lawful traceback of security incidents." > > An early ITU proposal from RAD Data Communications in Israel > said: > > "Traceability means that all future networks should enable > source > > trace-back, while accountability signifies the responsibility of > > > account providers to demand some reasonable form of > identification > > before granting access to network resources (similar to what > banks do > > before opening a bank accounts)." > > Multinational push to curb anonymous speech > > By itself, of course, the U.N. has no power to impose Internet > > standards on anyone. But U.N. and ITU officials have been > lobbying for > > more influence over the way the Internet is managed, most > prominently > > through the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia > and a > > followup series of meetings. > > The official charter of the ITU's Q6/17 group says that it will > work > > "in collaboration" with the IETF and the U.S. Computer Emergency > > > Response Team Coordination Center, which could provide a path > toward > > widespread adoption -- especially if national governments end up > > > embracing the idea. > > Patrick Bomgardner, the NSA's chief of public and media affairs, > told > > CNET News on Thursday that "we have no information to provide on > this > > issue." He would not say why the NSA was participating in the > process > > (and whether it was trying to fulfill its intelligence-gathering > > > mission or its other role of advancing information security). > > Toby Johnson, a communications officer with the ITU's > > Telecommunication Standardization Bureau in Geneva, also refused > to > > discuss Q6/17. "It may be difficult for experts to comment on > what > > state deliberations are in for fear of prejudicing the outcome," > he > > said in an e-mail message on Thursday. > > U.N. "IP traceback" documents > > China's proposal obtained by CNET News says "to ensure > traceability, > > essential information of the originator should be logged." > > Leaked requirements document says governments may need "to > identify > > the source of the negative articles" posted by political > adversaries. > > Korean presentation says standards bodies should be "required to > > > develop standards or guidelines" to facilitate unmasking users. > > > > Verisign executive's summarysummarizes presentation saying > protocols > > must have "a strong traceback capability, and establishing > traceback > > considerations in developing any new standards." > > When asked about the impact on Internet anonymity, Johnson > replied: "I > > am not fully acquainted with this topic and therefore not > qualified to > > provide an answer." He said that he expects that any final ITU > > standard would comport with the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of > Human > > Rights. > > It's unclear what happens next. For one thing, the traceback > proposal > > isn't scheduled to be finished until 2009, and one industry > source > > stressed that not all members of Q6/17 are in favor of it. The > five > > "editors" are: NSA's Richard Brackney; Tian Huirong from China's > > > telecommunications ministry; Korea's Youm Heung-Youl; Cisco's > Gregg > > Schudel; and Craig Schultz, who works for a Japan-based network > > security provider. (In keeping with the NSA's penchant for > secrecy, > > Brackney was the lone ITU participant in a 2006 working group > who > > failed to provide biographical information.) > > In response to a question about the eventual result, Schultz, > one of > > the editors, replied: "The long answer is, as you can probably > > imagine, this subject can get a little 'tense.' The main issue > is the > > protection of privacy as well as not having to rely on 'policy' > as > > part of a process. A secondary issue is feasibility and cost > versus > > benefit." He said a final recommendation is at least a year off. > > Another participant is Tony Rutkowski, Verisign's vice president > for > > regulatory affairs and longtime ITU attendee, who wrote a > three-page > > summary for IP traceback and a related concept called > "International > > Caller-ID Capability." > > In a series of e-mail messages, Rutkowski defended the creation > of the > > IP traceback "work item" at a meeting in April, and disputed the > > > legitimacy of the document posted by Bellovin. "The political > > motivation text was not part of any known ITU-T proposal and > certainly > > not the one which I helped facilitate," he wrote. > > Rutkowski added in a separate message: "In public networks, the > > capability of knowing the source of traffic has been built into > > protocols and administration since 1850! It's widely viewed as > > essential for settlements, network management, and > infrastructure > > protection purposes. The motivations are the same here. The OSI > > Internet protocols (IPv5) had the capabilities built-in. The > ARPA > > Internet left them out because the infrastructure was a private > DOD > > infrastructure." > > Because the Internet Protocol was not designed to be traceable, > it's > > possible to spoof addresses -- both for legitimate reasons, such > as > > sharing a single address on a home network, and for malicious > ones as > > well. In the early part of the decade, a flurry of academic > research > > focused on ways to perform IP tracebacks, perhaps byembedding > origin > > information in Internet communications, or Bellovin's suggestion > of > > occasionally automatically forwarding those data in a separate > message. > > If network providers and the IETF adopted IP traceback on their > own, > > perhaps on the grounds that security justifications outweighed > the > > harm to privacy and anonymity, that would be one thing. > > But in the United States, a formal legal requirement to adopt IP > > > traceback would run up against the First Amendment. A series of > court > > cases, including the 1995 decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections > > > Commission, provides a powerful shield protecting the right to > remain > > anonymous. In that case, the majority ruled: "Under our > Constitution, > > anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent > practice, but > > an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is > a > > shield from the tyranny of the majority." > > More broadly, the ITU's own constitution talks about "ensuring > the > > secrecy of international correspondence." And the Council of > Europe's > > Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet adopted > in > > 2003 says nations "should respect the will of users of the > Internet > > not to disclose their identity," while acknowledging law > enforcement- > > related tracing is sometimes necessary. > > "When NSA takes the lead on standard-setting, you have to ask > yourself > > how much is about security and how much is about surveillance," > said > > the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Rotenberg. "You > would > > think (the ITU) would be a little more sensitive to spying on > Internet > > users with the cooperation of the NSA and the Chinese > government." > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, > > please visit us regularly - you can find something new every > day: > > > > http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) > > http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > > Robin Gross, Executive Director > > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e:robin at ipjustice.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Tue Sep 16 10:46:16 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:46:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Transcript of morning session of IGF open consultation Message-ID: <48CFC6B8.8050500@panos-ao.org> Hi all You can find here the transcript of morning discussions of IGF open consultations http://www.intgovforum.org/IGF-16Sep08%20Consultation%20-%20Morning%20Session.txt Currently (starting from right now), item 5 of the agenda is being discussed (process of the review of the IGF) - Milton is speaking, talking about IGC contribution on this process. You can follow the live webcast (I hope it's working, I didn't check) of discussions using the address sent today by Adam (or go to http://www.intgovforum.org/ and check under preparatory process) - Afternoon session transcript will be put online later on. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 15 22:18:23 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:18:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: SV: IGC statement for open consultation References: <20080913220330.EED55A6C1D@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8426284@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48CF176E.704B7EBE@ix.netcom.com> David and all, Good points here David! I couldn't agree more.. David Allen wrote: > May I suggest some different perspective? > > To begin, it is worth to note that _all_ activities start as 'bottoms up' - someone's bright, new idea. It is the next part that is fateful: does the new effort develop some coherence, and thus begin to produce the results of joint effort, perhaps even significant collaborative work and important or profound results? > > That affects in two ways here: > > For one, to mix the three sectors together in a DC is only the beginning. They then have to find enough of a working method so that they get into harness with each other, at least for the task in hand. Only then - with some coherence - may they produce results. > > But beyond an individual DC, all the same holds for IGF, itself. To put it less happily, a cacophony of heterogeneous 'results' from DC's may not make any coherence for IGF. Nor will cacophony endear IGF to those who must engage it. Or, to put it more positively, IGF itself needs to achieve some coherence, if it is to produce some result. > > Of course all this necessarily begs a question of 'what results are the aim?' And this of course is a long, debated, hotly political matter. That however, does not change the fact that 'where are we going' is the bottom line. As a friend once said, if we don't know where we are going, any road will take us there. > > As to whether this matters: We have just heard, from the floor of the consultation, two commentators, that there remains a question whether governments will engage. This is three years into a total of five. And governments start out with the power. Whether they engage has pivotal effect on outcomes. Not the least, whether there is actual multi-stakeholderism. > > DC's have of course served in an excellent way, to bring the parties together. > > To get something done is going to require something additional, effort across time. That means working groups. Working groups within a DC are their own, individual affair. > > For IGF as a whole, that also means working groups. That of course is a hot-potato topic - addressed elsewhere. > > David > > At 11:15 AM +0200 9/14/08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >The Dynamic Coaliations (IGF-DC) are real innovations in international policy making. The big difference to "Working Groups" we know from the UN is the open multistakeholder composition, the bottom up approach and the flexible procedures. One of the key procedureal discussion point is now, as I can see it, should we formalize IGF-DCs or not? I think it is too early to push the IGF-DCs into a formal procedure. We have too less experiences and best practices so far. We need a little bit patience and have to wait how the bottom up discussion works and which outcomes are produced. For the moment the only thing I would propose is to define a set of criteria under which a group can be call itself an IGF-DC. Openess, multistakeholder, bottom up, transparent, related to the WSIS process could be some of 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 16 04:46:06 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:46:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Threats to Internte Bill of Rights: Member of European Parliament's questions to the Commission on ACTA Message-ID: <48CF724E.E787C2E@ix.netcom.com> All, The following clearly does and will continue to represent a threat to an Internet Bill of Rights: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&language=EN&reference=E-2008-3876&secondRef=0 Parliamentary questions 11 July 2008 E-3876/08 WRITTEN QUESTION by Andreas Mölzer (NI) to the Commission Subject: ACTA Agreement/mp3 music etc. With digitalisation and the advance of the Internet, young music consumers in particular have changed their habits. The music and film industries have not yet found a satisfactory new business model to cope with the fall in turnover of the last 10 years. On the contrary, blame is placed on file‑sharing etc. and attempts are made to label the average consumer as a criminal. There are already compensation claims before the courts in the USA, although — copyright violations being hard to prove — in many cases evidence of abuse cannot even be produced. In 2007 Parliament came out against criminal prosecution measures against shareware users who exchange copyright-protected data in a non- commercial setting,. The newspapers nevertheless report plans by the Commission to provide for prosecution measures in this very area in the framework of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with the USA, Switzerland, Canada and Japan. In addition, customs and other authorities in Europe also will apparently be able to search laptops, iPods and other data-carrying equipment for ‘illegal’ content without any specific reason. 1. What is the state of the negotiations on the ACTA Agreement, and what are its provisions at present? 2. Since checks at airports should serve only to ensure safety on board, airport security staff cannot be asked to search millions of digital cameras, memory cards, mobile phones etc. containing billions of data items. Are dedicated staff to be provided for this purpose, and who is to cover the cost of these searches? 3. Are there also plans in this context to check programmes installed on computers to ensure that they are licensed? 4. The searches being contemplated also raise the issues of possible commercial espionage (company laptops) and violation of privacy, quite apart from the fact that it can be established only with difficulty whether data have been legally or illegally acquired and a reversal of the burden of proof would violate fundamental and human rights. What solutions to this are being considered, and how in this context are violations of rights to be prevented? ****************************************************************************** E-3876/08EN Answer given by Mr Mandelson on behalf of the Commission (15.9.2008) 1. The negotiating guidelines for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) were formally adopted by the Council on 14 April 2008. Since then, the EU (represented by the Commission and with the presence of the Presidency and Member States) participated in the first ACTA negotiating round, on 3-4 June 2008, in Geneva. Discussion focused on customs enforcement issues. The second round took place in Washington on 29-31 July 2008 and was aimed at reaching an agreement on the provisions related to customs and on introducing civil enforcement matters. Member States are keen to be closely involved in the process due to the likely inclusion of matters of criminal policy. Consequently, the Presidency will be leading the negotiation on this matter (and other non-harmonised issues, such as some aspects of internet piracy). The Commission already has consulted, and will continue to consult, with industry and other interested stakeholders. A stakeholder consultation took place in Brussels on 23 June 2008. Furthermore, the Commission has briefed the International Trade Committee (INTA) in Parliament on ACTA since the launch of the process. Participants in ACTA include Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. 2. and 4: ACTA is about tackling an activity pursued mostly by criminal organisations. The gangs behind the main traffic lines of Intellectual Property (IP) infringing goods are often the same that commit criminal offences, such as drug trafficking or money laundering. ACTA will be a unique opportunity for the EU to promote its modern and effective acquis in terms of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement (inter alia the 2003 Customs Regulation , the 2004 Civil Enforcement Directive , or the 2001 Information Society Directive ) to other important trade partners. ACTA is not designed to limit fundamental rights and freedoms or civil liberties, such as the protection of personal data: this acquis in terms of IPR enforcement is without prejudice to national or Community legal provisions in other areas, in particular in the area of personal data protection, as regulated by the Data Protection Directive and the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications . ACTA is not designed negatively to affect consumers: EU legislation has a de minimis clause that establishes that goods carried in traveller’s personal baggage are considered to be outside the scope of this Regulation as long as these goods are not part of commercial traffic. 3. No. footnotes Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003. Directive 2004/48/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004. Directive 2001/29/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001. Directive 95/46/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995. Directive 2002/58/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, OJ L 201, 31.7.2002. Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pgo at info.fundp.ac.be Wed Sep 17 03:07:07 2008 From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe Goujon) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:07:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] namur seminar Theoretical approach to the problems and limits of governance 31 octobre 2008 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20080917085621.019b4eb8@pop.info.fundp.ac.be> Hoping you will forgive me if you have already received this mail Dear Colleagues, The ig3t organizing committee would like to announce the upcoming international seminar Workshop 1 Theoretical approach to the problems and limits of governance defined in terms of ethical normativity and elaboration of a common good (in Namur): Friday, October 31, 2008 see below for the program. The access to the workshop is free. The registration is hightly recommanded. We don't take in charge the lunch. This seminar is the first seminar of the project IG3T (internet governance: Transprency, trust and tools) You will find attached to this mail the general presentation of the program of the IG3T project. May I kindly ask to bring this seminar and project to the attention of anyone that you might know who would be interested. More info on the programm can be found at Http:\\www.info.fundp.ac.be/IG3T Sincerely, Ph Goujon, Sylvain Lavelle, Françoise Massit Follea, Norberto Patrignani and the Scientific committee: Danièle Bourcier, CERSA- Marc Bloch Center, Berlin Herbert Burkert, University of St Gall Rafaël Capurro, HDM Stuttgart Annie Chéneau-Loquay, CEAN/CNRS, IEP Bordeaux Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Centre de Philosophie du droit, Université Louvain-la-Neuve Richard Delmas, Principal administrator , EC Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, LIP6, Université Paris VII Philippe Goujon, CITA-FUNDP, Namur Alain d'Iribarne, FMSH, Paris Sylvain Lavelle, ICAM, Lille Françoise Massit-Folléa, Vox Internet, Lyon-Paris Paul Mathias, Collège international de philosophie, Paris Cécile Méadel, CSI, Ecole des Mines de Paris Laurence Monnoyer-Smith, COSTECH, Université de Technologie de Compiègne Norberto Patrignani, Catholic University of Milan Presentation of Namur seminar Project IG3T internet governance: Transprency, trust and tools Workshop 1 (in Namur): Friday, October 31, 2008 Theoretical approach to the problems and limits of governance defined in terms of ethical normativity and elaboration of a common good. Led by Philippe Goujon (FUNDP, Namur, Be.) and Sylvain Lavelle (CETS, ICAM, Lille, Fr.) The inclusion of social reflexivity in the relation between the justification and the application of norms makes it possible to give its full place to ethical normativity, which is often marginalised by technical normativity, whether instrumental or procedural. The aim of alternative governance integrating the relationship between justification and context is that of building a common good. It requires going beyond the implicit postulate of the absence of contradiction between maximising individual happiness and public common interest. It suggests reflecting on the possible objectivation of the conditions necessary to satisfy the requirements of such a public interest"(Mayntz) to highlight the democratic, deliberative and practical dimensions of an ethical form of Internet governance. (1) Richard Delmas (general administrator - EU): Genealogy of governance and its tensions. (2) Philippe Goujon (University of Namur, BE): Internet: democracy issues of a new governance (3) Sylvain Lavelle (Ethical, Technical & Society Centre, Group ICAM, Polytechnicum of Lille, FR): Norms and contexts: multi/trans/inter-cultural perspectives on governance. (4) Daniela Obradovic ( University of Amsterdam -newgov project) Globalization transforming democracy: Participation of civil society in new modes of governance at the international level. (5) Matthias Kettner (Witten Heidsecke University, DE): Governance, ethics and new technologies. (6) Tom de Deurwardere (CPDR, UCL -refgov project) New models of Governance, stakeholders and the common good. Philippe Goujon Professeur Faculté d'Informatique-Computer Science Department FUNDP Rue Grandgagnage, 21- B 5000 NAMUR 32+81 72 5258 - FAX 32+ 81 72 49 67 mail.pgo at info.fundp.ac.be présentation page perso: http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: annonce projet ig3t.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 155804 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 16 05:27:05 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:27:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4@ix.netcom.com> <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48CF7BE9.F0F25EE6@ix.netcom.com> All, My last response to this sort of disgraceful nonsense. The following was generated back to me regarding Mr. McTim's refrence, http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0211/msg00112.html which clearly demonstrates the refrence has serious credibility problems of the supposed originator: Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:19:57 -0400 From: Mail Delivery System To: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: nonukesnokooks at yahoo.com SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: host d.mx.mail.yahoo.com [66.196.82.7]: 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (nonukesnokooks at yahoo.com) [0] - mta117.mail.re1.yahoo.com ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: Received: from [4.227.97.127] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KfMQC-0002zA-F8; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:19:53 -0400 Message-ID: <48CDA879.B37EEC4B at ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:12:41 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: McTim CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Vint Cerf , Albert Brickel Subject: Re: [governance] Rights and Privacy: Questioning Google's PrivacyReform References: <48CCC820.AA9E37B4 at ix.netcom.com> <48CCF1B5.1A2F33F at ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit McTim and all, Your reference, http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0211/msg00112.html is from a person I do not know, have never met, nor have to my current knowledge ever exchanged any Email with. The sender of this nonsense is one whom identifies himself as one Albert Brickel Whom I also do not know, have never met, nor do I recall ever exchanging any Email with. I also would not even consider Mr. Brickel is whom he says he is due to the fact he uses Yahoo as his Email provider whose DNS is miss configured, see: http://member.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnslite.php?r=homepage&domain=yahoo.com and http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=yahoo.com&token=25c0275961eb9a1e3e85538c313c9019 which is the "Official" DNS tool of the OMB, and the GAO. As anyone of reasonable intelligence and even a moderate knowledge of DNS, an "Open Relay" is a prelude for falsifying ones identity, or for hackers to use for any number of nefarious or illegal purposes, and too often is. I have never claimed to be a member of the Texas state democratic of Republican caucus, I HAVE never been associated directly with either party nor am I registered as a Democratic or Republican. You can check the voter registration for the state of Texas for that information. So this person, whomever he of she is, in that part of your referenced post alone has told a untruth that is easily checked. I do have a law degree, but do not specialize in Trademark or IP law, and never have, as this person improperly states. Nor have I ever stated such. I did attend several economic conferences, one was in Waco. Ergo, this person, and again whomever he or she is, is factually either mistaken, has miss stated second hand information in some skewed manner, or is just into character assignation for whatever purposes he or she feels is to some ends that I cannot determine, nor really care to do so. INEGroup has more than 200,000 members and now nearly 300,000 members at last count and all are registered with the FEC. An FOIA request will if properly filled out, gain you or anyone else the relevant information accordingly. But thank you for pointing me to this link, I shall report it to the proper authorities in short order. And if you like, I will forward that report on to you or anyone whom requests it. In any event, I don't see how any of your below remarks have anything what so ever to do with Rights and Privacy, or Google's TOS and or policies. Ergo such a personal attack, especially based on second hand and/or false statements only diminishes your disagreement with the facts and Googles practice and underscores why Google is often miss used or used for nafarious purposes that needs correcting more fully than they have to date. I would kindly and strongly suggest that they follow ASK.COM's example, see: http://www.ask.com/askeraserjsdisabled?rp=askeraserjsdisabled&ejs=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ask.com%2F and http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/askeraser.shtml These are appropriate policies. McTim wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > McTim and all, > > > > McTim wrote: > > > >> cc list trimmed. > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > All, and especially Vint, > >> > > >> > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, > >> > > >> > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially > >> > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble > >> > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. > >> > >> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any > >> standing to comment on their practices? > > > > Personally I don't. But a few of our members do. > > really? > > http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0211/msg00112.html > > > This is just a reminder that INEG > group does not exist, that Jeff Williams is not to be > taken seriously, and that he speaks only for himself > and not for a group of over 100,000 people. > > > A number of us on this list have been on lists with you before, and > know your history. > > I welcome you to this list, but hope that you could limit your posts > as requested by others previously.. Replying for the sake of replying > is counter to the netiquette RFC mentioned in our charter. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 McTim wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams > wrote: > > McTim and all, > > > > McTim wrote: > > > >> cc list trimmed. > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > All, and especially Vint, > >> > > >> > I can't of course speak for the IGC, nor Google users, I am not one, > >> > > >> > but I am yet again having trouble believing anything Google officially > >> > says, or for that matter does, as well as having more and more trouble > >> > with their sense of right and wrong, and User Friendliness. > >> > >> If you are not a Google user, then why do you think you have any > >> standing to comment on their practices? > > > > Personally I don't. But a few of our members do. > > really? > > http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0211/msg00112.html > > > This is just a reminder that INEG > group does not exist, that Jeff Williams is not to be > taken seriously, and that he speaks only for himself > and not for a group of over 100,000 people. > > > A number of us on this list have been on lists with you before, and > know your history. > > I welcome you to this list, but hope that you could limit your posts > as requested by others previously.. Replying for the sake of replying > is counter to the netiquette RFC mentioned in our charter. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From peter at peter-dambier.de Wed Sep 17 08:58:26 2008 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:58:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Listening to Skype is cheap - Germany proofed it Message-ID: <20080917125837.9E6E9A6C32@smtp2.electricembers.net> Ever wanted to know what they charge you? If you are a gouvernment agency, afraid of your citisens if you are a company afraid of your clients no problem. For less than Euro 10,000 you can spy out your victims for one month. The secret papers http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/images/5/54/Bayern-skype-tkue.pdf show mails exchanged between members of german law people and a german company who can help you with servers and software. To proof the papers not being a fake, police have taken away equipment from the speaker of the German Pirates Party in Bavaria. http://piratenpartei.de/node/381 http://piratenpartei.de/node/105 Sorry the document are in german. The pdf might be difficult to translate. Cheers Peter -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 17 17:02:15 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:32:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] role in MAG Message-ID: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of the role as per my email is quite fine. I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is that of following Chatham house rules. Parminder (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) Dear Markus As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed to consult my organization. I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my advocacy work - as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case IGF's. However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily important forum - even more so from a futuristic perspective - in providing new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching out to civil society groups and persons. As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially those undertaken in confidence. I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as something that requires some amount of careful thought. I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. Best Regards Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Sep 18 04:36:33 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:36:33 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] role in MAG References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder you have my full support and indeed there is ni contradiction between your position as IGC Co-Chair and being a Special Advsier to the IGF Chair. In contrary this will strengthen CS input into th IGF process and will give the IGC more visibility and global recognition. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Mi 17.09.2008 23:02 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] role in MAG Hi All As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of the role as per my email is quite fine. I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is that of following Chatham house rules. Parminder (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) Dear Markus As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed to consult my organization. I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my advocacy work - as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case IGF's. However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily important forum - even more so from a futuristic perspective - in providing new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching out to civil society groups and persons. As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially those undertaken in confidence. I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as something that requires some amount of careful thought. I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. Best Regards 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 qshatti at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 05:06:09 2008 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:06:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] role in MAG In-Reply-To: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <609019df0809180206s6bc2d302u769bc8418fb6ca1f@mail.gmail.com> Hi Parminder: I agree with Wolfgang, I think that being a special advisor to the chair will not contradict with your role as IGC coordinator. In the contrary it will expnand CS involvement within the IGF and will give the IGC cauacus a bigger role. All the Best,, Qusai On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus > that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG > chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking > and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy > role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the > sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the > IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of > the role as per my email is quite fine. > > > > I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not > conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the > later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of > conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to > understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is > that of following Chatham house rules. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not > share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) > > > > > > > > (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation > to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) > > > > Dear Markus > > > > As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the > gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do > with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work > will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed > to consult my organization. > > > > I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my > advocacy work – as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to > go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and > the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in > engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing > perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case > IGF's. > > > > However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily > important forum – even more so from a futuristic perspective – in providing > new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from > its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, > in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an > evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate > that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in > fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. > > > > I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the > chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide > assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching > out to civil society groups and persons. > > > > As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the > 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members > can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do > understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic > purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed > rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially > those undertaken in confidence. > > > > I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the > specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities > makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as > something that requires some amount of careful thought. > > > > I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above > understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the > Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Sep 18 05:14:55 2008 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:14:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] role in MAG In-Reply-To: <609019df0809180206s6bc2d302u769bc8418fb6ca1f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <609019df0809180206s6bc2d302u769bc8418fb6ca1f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48D21C0F.2020405@rits.org.br> I agree with Wolf and Qusai. --c.a. Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Hi Parminder: > I agree with Wolfgang, I think that being a special advisor to the chair > will not contradict with your role as IGC coordinator. In the contrary it > will expnand CS involvement within the IGF and will give the IGC cauacus a > bigger role. > > All the Best,, > > Qusai > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> >> >> As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus >> that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG >> chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking >> and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy >> role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the >> sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the >> IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of >> the role as per my email is quite fine. >> >> >> >> I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not >> conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the >> later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of >> conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to >> understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is >> that of following Chatham house rules. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not >> share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation >> to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) >> >> >> >> Dear Markus >> >> >> >> As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the >> gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do >> with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work >> will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed >> to consult my organization. >> >> >> >> I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my >> advocacy work – as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to >> go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and >> the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in >> engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing >> perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case >> IGF's. >> >> >> >> However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily >> important forum – even more so from a futuristic perspective – in providing >> new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from >> its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, >> in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an >> evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate >> that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in >> fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. >> >> >> >> I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the >> chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide >> assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching >> out to civil society groups and persons. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the >> 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members >> can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do >> understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic >> purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed >> rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially >> those undertaken in confidence. >> >> >> >> I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the >> specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities >> makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as >> something that requires some amount of careful thought. >> >> >> >> I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above >> understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the >> Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 07:06:45 2008 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:06:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] role in MAG In-Reply-To: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <701af9f70809180406i68b4b37exc4b87b378aeca845@mail.gmail.com> Parminder, I would like to fully support you in making this decision and this helps us communicate Civil Society's message across the different levels of the IGF process. Even personally evaluating your position within role of CS and advocacy, I don't see it to be a conflict of interest as its in support of the critical intellect and thought you bring to the table on issues relevant to IG and your global insight on the subject with respect to developed and developing world countries. Our support is with you! Congrats and best regards! Fouad On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus > that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG > chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking > and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy > role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the > sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the > IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of > the role as per my email is quite fine. > > > > I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not conflict > with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the later as > primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of conflict, however > unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to understand that > almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is that of following > Chatham house rules. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not > share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) > > > > > > > > (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation to > be a special advisor to the MAG chair) > > > > Dear Markus > > > > As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the > gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do > with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work > will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed > to consult my organization. > > > > I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my > advocacy work – as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to > go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and > the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in > engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing > perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case > IGF's. > > > > However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily important > forum – even more so from a futuristic perspective – in providing new > possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from its > cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, in > terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an > evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate > that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in > fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. > > > > I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the > chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide > assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching > out to civil society groups and persons. > > > > As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the > 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members > can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do > understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic > purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed > rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially > those undertaken in confidence. > > > > I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the > specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities > makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as > something that requires some amount of careful thought. > > > > I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above > understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the > Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. > > > > Best Regards > > > > 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 > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 07:40:40 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:40:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] role in MAG In-Reply-To: <701af9f70809180406i68b4b37exc4b87b378aeca845@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <701af9f70809180406i68b4b37exc4b87b378aeca845@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48D23E38.5080202@wzb.eu> Congratulations, Parminder! jeanette Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Parminder, I would like to fully support you in making this decision > and this helps us communicate Civil Society's message across the > different levels of the IGF process. Even personally evaluating your > position within role of CS and advocacy, I don't see it to be a > conflict of interest as its in support of the critical intellect and > thought you bring to the table on issues relevant to IG and your > global insight on the subject with respect to developed and developing > world countries. Our support is with you! > > Congrats and best regards! > > Fouad > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> >> >> >> As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus >> that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG >> chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking >> and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy >> role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the >> sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the >> IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of >> the role as per my email is quite fine. >> >> >> >> I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not conflict >> with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the later as >> primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of conflict, however >> unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to understand that >> almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is that of following >> Chatham house rules. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not >> share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation to >> be a special advisor to the MAG chair) >> >> >> >> Dear Markus >> >> >> >> As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the >> gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do >> with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work >> will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed >> to consult my organization. >> >> >> >> I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my >> advocacy work – as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to >> go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and >> the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in >> engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing >> perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case >> IGF's. >> >> >> >> However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily important >> forum – even more so from a futuristic perspective – in providing new >> possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from its >> cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, in >> terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an >> evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate >> that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in >> fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. >> >> >> >> I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the >> chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide >> assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching >> out to civil society groups and persons. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the >> 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members >> can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do >> understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic >> purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed >> rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially >> those undertaken in confidence. >> >> >> >> I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the >> specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities >> makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as >> something that requires some amount of careful thought. >> >> >> >> I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above >> understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the >> Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> 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 asif at kabani.co.uk Thu Sep 18 08:05:58 2008 From: asif at kabani.co.uk (Kabani) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:05:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] role in MAG In-Reply-To: <609019df0809180206s6bc2d302u769bc8418fb6ca1f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <609019df0809180206s6bc2d302u769bc8418fb6ca1f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8017791e0809180505h69f9e203v9cdc5e6f8811754f@mail.gmail.com> Parminder, Congrulations first, we agree with you all my support. Asif Kabani 2008/9/18 Qusai AlShatti > Hi Parminder: > I agree with Wolfgang, I think that being a special advisor to the chair > will not contradict with your role as IGC coordinator. In the contrary it > will expnand CS involvement within the IGF and will give the IGC cauacus a > bigger role. > > All the Best,, > > Qusai > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> >> >> As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus >> that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG >> chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking >> and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy >> role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the >> sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the >> IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of >> the role as per my email is quite fine. >> >> >> >> I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not >> conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the >> later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of >> conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to >> understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is >> that of following Chatham house rules. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not >> share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation >> to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) >> >> >> >> Dear Markus >> >> >> >> As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the >> gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do >> with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work >> will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed >> to consult my organization. >> >> >> >> I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my >> advocacy work – as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to >> go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and >> the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in >> engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing >> perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case >> IGF's. >> >> >> >> However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily >> important forum – even more so from a futuristic perspective – in providing >> new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from >> its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, >> in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an >> evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate >> that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in >> fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. >> >> >> >> I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the >> chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide >> assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching >> out to civil society groups and persons. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the >> 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members >> can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do >> understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic >> purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed >> rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially >> those undertaken in confidence. >> >> >> >> I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the >> specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities >> makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as >> something that requires some amount of careful thought. >> >> >> >> I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above >> understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the >> Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> 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 > > -- Visit: www.kabani.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 09:04:53 2008 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:34:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] role in MAG In-Reply-To: <8017791e0809180505h69f9e203v9cdc5e6f8811754f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <609019df0809180206s6bc2d302u769bc8418fb6ca1f@mail.gmail.com> <8017791e0809180505h69f9e203v9cdc5e6f8811754f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Parminder. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Kabani wrote: > Parminder, > > Congrulations first, we agree with you all my support. > > > Asif Kabani > > 2008/9/18 Qusai AlShatti > > Hi Parminder: >> I agree with Wolfgang, I think that being a special advisor to the chair >> will not contradict with your role as IGC coordinator. In the contrary it >> will expnand CS involvement within the IGF and will give the IGC cauacus a >> bigger role. >> >> All the Best,, >> >> Qusai >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Parminder wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> >>> >>> As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus >>> that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG >>> chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking >>> and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy >>> role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the >>> sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the >>> IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of >>> the role as per my email is quite fine. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not >>> conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the >>> later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of >>> conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to >>> understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is >>> that of following Chatham house rules. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not >>> share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation >>> to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Markus >>> >>> >>> >>> As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting >>> the gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to >>> do with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work >>> will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed >>> to consult my organization. >>> >>> >>> >>> I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my >>> advocacy work – as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to >>> go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and >>> the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in >>> engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing >>> perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case >>> IGF's. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily >>> important forum – even more so from a futuristic perspective – in providing >>> new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from >>> its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, >>> in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an >>> evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate >>> that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in >>> fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. >>> >>> >>> >>> I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the >>> chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide >>> assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching >>> out to civil society groups and persons. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the >>> 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members >>> can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do >>> understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic >>> purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed >>> rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially >>> those undertaken in confidence. >>> >>> >>> >>> I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the >>> specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities >>> makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as >>> something that requires some amount of careful thought. >>> >>> >>> >>> I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above >>> understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the >>> Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Visit: www.kabani.co.uk > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 18 09:42:01 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:42:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] role in MAG References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Parminder I do not like the whole system of "special advisors" appointed on a discretionary basis, but if they are selecting you as one of them at least it shows some balance. as a general principle, i would prefer that there not be any special advisors and that the MAG consistent of representatives selected transparently through stakeholder nominations. Since the system of discretionary appointments exists, it is not wrong for you to make use of it and tahnks for thinking carefully about the implications ________________________________ Van: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Verzonden: wo 17-9-2008 17:02 Aan: governance at lists.cpsr.org Onderwerp: [governance] role in MAG Hi All As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of the role as per my email is quite fine. I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is that of following Chatham house rules. Parminder (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) Dear Markus As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed to consult my organization. I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my advocacy work - as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case IGF's. However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily important forum - even more so from a futuristic perspective - in providing new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching out to civil society groups and persons. As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially those undertaken in confidence. I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as something that requires some amount of careful thought. I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. Best Regards Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8349 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 18 09:45:22 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:45:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF consultation http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 10:39:21 2008 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:39:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Evaluation Message-ID: <609019df0809180739j4725ed4h405992e5c9606db@mail.gmail.com> Dear All: The issue of evaluationg the IGF, in terms of should it continue after the end of the five years and to what extent it fullfiled its mandate, was discussed during the open consultation and the MAG meeting. There was a general agreement (in the open consultation and the MAG) That it is too early to start the process of evaluation.There were also different opinions on who should do the evaluation (the MAG, external or independent evaluators). What was clear is that the CSTD is the concrened body that would give the official recommendation on the continuation of the IGF after the end of the five years. This recommendation will be forwarded to the ECOSOC which will vote on it. Then it will be forwarded to th UN General Assembly for the final decision. This means that the governments will have the final say on this issue. It is expcedted that the UN SG will make a report on the evaluation of the IGF as a process and make his recommendation on the issue of IGF continuation. This report will be forwarded to the CSTD once it is completed. The MAG view was that the ealuation process was not part of its mandate unless the UN SG requested that from it. However the MAG found that this is an important issue and it should be discussed on the level of open consultations where individuals, CS, governments can express their opinions. Therefore the MAG suggested that the next open consultation session will be two days rather thatn one. Regards, Qusai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 18 10:48:24 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:48:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide the highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 is a good example. Why is that? jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > > For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF > consultation > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 11:10:36 2008 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:10:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Evaluation In-Reply-To: <782055654-1221749133-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-43292534-@bxe025.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <609019df0809180739j4725ed4h405992e5c9606db@mail.gmail.com> <782055654-1221749133-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-43292534-@bxe025.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <609019df0809180810q7f4f5b59jfaf8cc6a27630352@mail.gmail.com> The MAG did not discuss the details of the evaluation. Unless the UN SG would request the MAG to assist in the evaluation process, this is beyond the MAG mandate. This is why it was suggested that the IGF evaluation will considered an open consultation topic. Regards, Qusai On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Maja Andjelkovic < maja.andjelkovic at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for this overview, Qusai - very helpful to know more about the > discussion. Do you know if the MAG considered the level of > detail/appropriate extent of the evaluation, given that the only explicit > question to be answered is whether the IGF should continue past the initial > five years? > > Good to see you, albeit briefly, yesterday! > > All the best, > Maja > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Qusai AlShatti" > *Date*: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:39:21 +0300 > *To*: > *Subject*: [governance] IGF Evaluation > > Dear All: > The issue of evaluationg the IGF, in terms of should it continue after the > end of the five years and to what extent it fullfiled its mandate, was > discussed during the open consultation and the MAG meeting. There was a > general agreement (in the open consultation and the MAG) That it is too > early to start the process of evaluation.There were also different opinions > on who should do the evaluation (the MAG, external or independent > evaluators). > > What was clear is that the CSTD is the concrened body that would give the > official recommendation on the continuation of the IGF after the end of the > five years. This recommendation will be forwarded to the ECOSOC which will > vote on it. Then it will be forwarded to th UN General Assembly for the > final decision. This means that the governments will have the final say on > this issue. > > It is expcedted that the UN SG will make a report on the evaluation of the > IGF as a process and make his recommendation on the issue of IGF > continuation. This report will be forwarded to the CSTD once it is > completed. The MAG view was that the ealuation process was not part of its > mandate unless the UN SG requested that from it. However the MAG found that > this is an important issue and it should be discussed on the level of open > consultations where individuals, CS, governments can express their opinions. > Therefore the MAG suggested that the next open consultation session will be > two days rather thatn one. > > Regards, > > Qusai > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 11:32:42 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:32:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: hi, My sense of this is different, as you can probably guess. On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found > puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their mailing > lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they interact with > others they take an educational stance and try to hide the highly > controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 is a good example. > Why is that? It seems to me that if you want to have debates that actually shape policy on these issues then one should have them in the appropriate forum. If you want to have discussions in a non-binding forum, such as the IGF that is not supposed to make policy, then the point of those debates seems to me to be: "background information," "educational material" and "best practice" dissemination. Which is exactly what MM says in his blog that "technical communitarians" want. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 18 12:18:16 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:18:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48D27F48.60000@wzb.eu> McTim wrote: > hi, > > My sense of this is different, as you can probably guess. > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found >> puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their mailing >> lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they interact with >> others they take an educational stance and try to hide the highly >> controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 is a good example. >> Why is that? > > It seems to me that if you want to have debates that actually shape > policy on these issues then one should have them in the appropriate > forum. If you want to have discussions in a non-binding forum, such > as the IGF that is not supposed to make policy, then the point of > those debates seems to me to be: "background information," > "educational material" and "best practice" dissemination. Which is > exactly what MM says in his blog that "technical communitarians" want. Hi McTim, to state the obvious question, what does multi-stakeholder forum mean under conditions where we exchange is restricted to educating each other and the important stuff like policy decisions remains in the "appropriate forum". My understanding of stakeholders taking each other seriously would include that we tell each other about open questions and controversial views in a way that we enable other groups to understand the issue and express preferences and concerns. 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 raul at lacnic.net Thu Sep 18 12:31:04 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:31:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> Jeanette: i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess that I am very surprised to see you saying that. The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists of people that fight very much among them and later smiles to the other stakeholders. The lists that you refer are usually open and everybody can participate and become engaged in the discussions. The probe of that is that Milton has became one of the top 3-5 in posting emails in ARIN policy list. You can become also engaged in those discussions if you want. It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational" attitude. You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people. Raùl El 18/09/2008, a las 11:48 a.m., Jeanette Hofmann escribió: > Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found > puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their > mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they > interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide > the highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 > is a good example. Why is that? > jeanette > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF >> consultation >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 18 12:39:52 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:39:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901884201@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Raul, no one asserted that these lists were "closed and secret." my blog posts links to the open archives of ARIN ppml. ________________________________ Van: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net] Verzonden: do 18-9-2008 12:31 Aan: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann CC: Milton L Mueller Onderwerp: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation Jeanette: i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess that I am very surprised to see you saying that. The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists of people that fight very much among them and later smiles to the other stakeholders. The lists that you refer are usually open and everybody can participate and become engaged in the discussions. The probe of that is that Milton has became one of the top 3-5 in posting emails in ARIN policy list. You can become also engaged in those discussions if you want. It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational" attitude. You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people. Raùl El 18/09/2008, a las 11:48 a.m., Jeanette Hofmann escribió: > Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found > puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their > mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they > interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide > the highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 > is a good example. Why is that? > jeanette > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF >> consultation >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 12:41:24 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:41:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <48D27F48.60000@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901884202@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > >Hi McTim, to state the obvious question, what does multi-stakeholder >forum mean under conditions where we exchange is restricted to educating >each other and the important stuff like policy decisions remains in the >"appropriate forum". Even if you believe that real policy decisions regarding addressing should be left in the RIRs, as I currently do, what is wrong with debating those policy options in a wider forum, one that includes civil society and governmental participants who would run screaming from the ARIN ppml list because of its traffic and specialized technical talk? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 18 13:08:41 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:08:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> Hi Raul, I guess there are a few misunderstandings... Raul Echeberria wrote: > Jeanette: > > i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess that I > am very surprised to see you saying that. > The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to > describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists I didn't speak of closed or secret lists. I am subscribed to several technical lists myself. of people that > fight very much among them and later smiles to the other stakeholders. > > The lists that you refer are usually open and everybody can participate > and become engaged in the discussions. I know and wouldn't dispute that. > It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational" > attitude. Milton referred to the discussion we had about the structure and direction of the main session on IPv4/IPv6 at the next IGF meeting. It wasn't easy to come to an agreement. Different ideas about the focus and the purpose of the session played a role here, as you know. You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep > frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people. Yes, this is true. And I wouldn't say that all engineers hide controversies. Yet, without wanting to be unfair, it is still true that I am puzzled by the differences of the ways issues are presented within engineering communities and outside of it. Believe it or not, I once wrote an article about this. In this article (from 1998 or so) I compared the account that an engineer gave in an interview with me with his contributions on a mailing list. It was Mike O'Dell who I interviewed, and I sent him the article. He didn't find it offensive from what I remember. Here is a little clipping from the article. It is so old, it makes me laugh: Shortly before midnight on a Saturday evening in October, we receive an email. Under the number 2200, the following posting appears on our mailing list: Date sent: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 23:57:23 -0400 (EDT) From: mo at UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) To: ipng at sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM Subject: (IPng 2200) 8+8... imagine that. i have a draft that i'm finishing up which details an 8+8 proposal.... -mo For those interested in the full text: http://duplox.wz-berlin.de/people/jeanette/texte/gortextengl.html jeanette > > > > Raùl > > > > > > > El 18/09/2008, a las 11:48 a.m., Jeanette Hofmann escribió: > >> Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found >> puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their >> mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they >> interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide >> the highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 >> is a good example. Why is that? >> jeanette >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF >>> consultation >>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 18 13:17:35 2008 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:47:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20080918171800.6E361A6CA1@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found > puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their > mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they > interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide the > highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 is a > good example. Why is that? > jeanette I will try to give a simplistic reply, which may be excused for over-simplification, if one so feels about it. The technical community has some kind of distrust about spaces outside their own ones, which, especially the policy oriented ones, are seen by them as threatening to bring in statist control over the internet, which they (as per their opinion) manage quite well. They do not think they need any, or any further, political inputs, legitimacy and/or supervision. Their fears are not entirely unjustified, but they must understand that Internet is increasingly so central to many social processes and activities that its governance must address issues of legitimacy and participation of all involved and implicated. And this simply mean that they have to open up discussions of key IG issues to non-technical stakeholders and spaces, while defending their strong and justified position against misuse of political processes for a greater, illegitimate, statist control. In this regard it is not enough to say, well, the spaces we discuss these issues in are open to all. Every space has its unique structural exclusions and inclusions, which cant be ignored under a pretence of nominal openness. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation > > Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found > puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their > mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they > interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide the > highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 is a > good example. Why is that? > jeanette > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF > > consultation > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Sep 18 13:34:47 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:34:47 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262BF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I am surprised that Milton in his blog did ignore the statements of the governments of China, Russia and US. Interesting interventions and worth to read in the transcripts. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Do 18.09.2008 19:08 An: Raul Echeberria Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Betreff: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation Hi Raul, I guess there are a few misunderstandings... Raul Echeberria wrote: > Jeanette: > > i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess that I > am very surprised to see you saying that. > The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to > describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists I didn't speak of closed or secret lists. I am subscribed to several technical lists myself. of people that > fight very much among them and later smiles to the other stakeholders. > > The lists that you refer are usually open and everybody can participate > and become engaged in the discussions. I know and wouldn't dispute that. > It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational" > attitude. Milton referred to the discussion we had about the structure and direction of the main session on IPv4/IPv6 at the next IGF meeting. It wasn't easy to come to an agreement. Different ideas about the focus and the purpose of the session played a role here, as you know. You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep > frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people. Yes, this is true. And I wouldn't say that all engineers hide controversies. Yet, without wanting to be unfair, it is still true that I am puzzled by the differences of the ways issues are presented within engineering communities and outside of it. Believe it or not, I once wrote an article about this. In this article (from 1998 or so) I compared the account that an engineer gave in an interview with me with his contributions on a mailing list. It was Mike O'Dell who I interviewed, and I sent him the article. He didn't find it offensive from what I remember. Here is a little clipping from the article. It is so old, it makes me laugh: Shortly before midnight on a Saturday evening in October, we receive an email. Under the number 2200, the following posting appears on our mailing list: Date sent: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 23:57:23 -0400 (EDT) From: mo at UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) To: ipng at sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM Subject: (IPng 2200) 8+8... imagine that. i have a draft that i'm finishing up which details an 8+8 proposal.... -mo For those interested in the full text: http://duplox.wz-berlin.de/people/jeanette/texte/gortextengl.html jeanette > > > > Raùl > > > > > > > El 18/09/2008, a las 11:48 a.m., Jeanette Hofmann escribió: > >> Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found >> puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their >> mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they >> interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide >> the highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 >> is a good example. Why is that? >> jeanette >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF >>> consultation >>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Thu Sep 18 15:45:37 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (raul at lacnic.net) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:45:37 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> > Hi Raul, > I guess there are a few misunderstandings... > > Raul Echeberria wrote: >> Jeanette: >> >> i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess that I >> am very surprised to see you saying that. >> The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to >> describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists > > I didn't speak of closed or secret lists. I am subscribed to several > technical lists myself. It is implied in what you said. You say that technical community members among themselves speak in some way and in a different way when speak with other people. It implieas a vision according which technical community people only speak for technical community in their lists, and it is not true since all the forums are open and transparents. the controversies, debates, discussions and different view expressed, simply could not be hidden. .......... > >> It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational" >> attitude. > > Milton referred to the discussion we had about the structure and > direction of the main session on IPv4/IPv6 at the next IGF meeting. It > wasn't easy to come to an agreement. Different ideas about the focus and > the purpose of the session played a role here, as you know. It was not so difficult. It was the first Main session Workshop in being ready and perhaps we should think that the different ideas expressed are based in legitimate different views that anybody involved in that discussion had. I think that there was good faith in frank and open discussion. Is it bad? > > You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep >> frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people. > > Yes, this is true. And I wouldn't say that all engineers hide > controversies. Yet, without wanting to be unfair, it is still true that > I am puzzled by the differences of the ways issues are presented within > engineering communities and outside of it. Different forums have different characteristics and some things that are proposed in the IGF for example are not proposed in other given forums and viceversa. Speaking about the small part of the techical community world that corresponds to LACNIC, we spent a lot of energies and resources in engaging other stakeholders in the discussions with big success fortunately trying to be everytime more open and have more participation (using always a single speech, not changing it according our convenience). Many people in this list is witness of that. And without trying to speak on behalf of others, I know that this is not that only LACNIC does. So, it is very frustrating for me when I see the way in which you describe the behavior of the technical community because some people that read that and ignore how do we work and the efforts we make, can get a very wrong impression. Raùl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 16:43:30 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:43:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901884202@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <48D27F48.60000@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901884202@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Even if you believe that real policy decisions regarding addressing should > be left in the RIRs, as I currently do, what is wrong with debating those > policy options in a wider forum "WRONG" as in "EVIL" is too strong a word, perhaps "not optimal" is better. Off the top of my head, the non-optimal things could include: duplication of effort misleading folks into thinking they have contributed to policy development (as in "hey we talked about this at the IGF and wanted X to happen, now Y is happening, what's up with that?") discouraging them from joining the policy making fora by providing a "lite" alternative discouraging folk from participating in a discussion because of cultural norms that shun confrontation In any case it's a tempest in a teacup AFAIAC, in reading the transcript again, I see that all the people you accuse of "an orchestrated move" use the word "debate" multiple times, they just added "and dialogue". -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 18 17:06:17 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262BF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262BF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E919@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I wrote a blog that was already quite long. I did not "ignore" specific contributions, just didn't mention them, along with about 30 others. Anyway, the Russians and Chinese came out in favor of debate and open discussion of controversial issues. There are ironies here, admittedly. One could ask why governments that suppress dissent at home are eager to allow it in an international forum, just as one can ask why communities that enjoy robust debate internally try to suppress it externally. But the answers are pretty obvious, for those of us who see these exchanges as based on strategic pursuit of their own interests. I don't know why you mention the US intervention my recollection is that there was nothing interesting about it (as usual) but perhaps I missed something. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > > I am surprised that Milton in his blog did ignore the statements of the > governments of China, Russia and US. Interesting interventions and worth > to read in the transcripts. > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 18 17:39:20 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:39:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Raul, It may be helpful to observe the facts that sparked this conversation. Namely, from the record of written statements and interventions in this open discussion, as well as Milton's subjective veew as reported in his blog, it appears/looks like ITAA & ISOC & ICC & USG (& ETNO?) coordinated to try to stifle 'debate' at IGF III. At IGF, not in their own fora. Or should I say excuse me, because I should have said they tried to promote 'dialogue' and education instead of debate? This is not a knock on IETF or LACNIC or anyone else including USG, it is just an observation of what looks like a coordinated effort to limit 'debate' at IGF. In which technical community representatives were one but not the only players trying this tactic. So the question perhaps should be more nuanced, why is debate a good thing in some fora but not in IGF? Frankly it is frustrating to me that folks representing a few of the various stakeholder 'technical' communities at the global level still try to pull this silliness in 2008. For example, I believe many would agree that perhaps the best shot at sorting through the complexities and inter-dependencies to really make the IPv4 to v6 transition happen, if it ever will, is multistakeholder debate and discussion - including at IGF. Since if IPv4 to v6 was just a technical issue for the technical community to handle itself we might guess it would have been done long ago. So in my opinion the odds are the very best shot at sorting out the holdups is a very lively debate or 2 or 3, at IGF. A technical lecture educating the policy masses on how the bits line up would be a waste of time and space at a policy/governance form. As an example of why 'debate' at IGF is a good thing, and not something to be feared. Remember IGF can't make anyone do anything, so I really don;t see what people are afraid of. Lee -----Original Message----- From: raul at lacnic.net [mailto:raul at lacnic.net] Sent: Thu 9/18/2008 3:45 PM To: Jeanette Hofmann Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation > Hi Raul, > I guess there are a few misunderstandings... > > Raul Echeberria wrote: >> Jeanette: >> >> i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess that I >> am very surprised to see you saying that. >> The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to >> describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists > > I didn't speak of closed or secret lists. I am subscribed to several > technical lists myself. It is implied in what you said. You say that technical community members among themselves speak in some way and in a different way when speak with other people. It implieas a vision according which technical community people only speak for technical community in their lists, and it is not true since all the forums are open and transparents. the controversies, debates, discussions and different view expressed, simply could not be hidden. .......... > >> It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational" >> attitude. > > Milton referred to the discussion we had about the structure and > direction of the main session on IPv4/IPv6 at the next IGF meeting. It > wasn't easy to come to an agreement. Different ideas about the focus and > the purpose of the session played a role here, as you know. It was not so difficult. It was the first Main session Workshop in being ready and perhaps we should think that the different ideas expressed are based in legitimate different views that anybody involved in that discussion had. I think that there was good faith in frank and open discussion. Is it bad? > > You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep >> frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people. > > Yes, this is true. And I wouldn't say that all engineers hide > controversies. Yet, without wanting to be unfair, it is still true that > I am puzzled by the differences of the ways issues are presented within > engineering communities and outside of it. Different forums have different characteristics and some things that are proposed in the IGF for example are not proposed in other given forums and viceversa. Speaking about the small part of the techical community world that corresponds to LACNIC, we spent a lot of energies and resources in engaging other stakeholders in the discussions with big success fortunately trying to be everytime more open and have more participation (using always a single speech, not changing it according our convenience). Many people in this list is witness of that. And without trying to speak on behalf of others, I know that this is not that only LACNIC does. So, it is very frustrating for me when I see the way in which you describe the behavior of the technical community because some people that read that and ignore how do we work and the efforts we make, can get a very wrong impression. Raùl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 18:07:26 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:07:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <20080918171800.6E361A6CA1@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <20080918171800.6E361A6CA1@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Parminder wrote: > > The technical community has some kind of distrust about spaces outside their > own ones, which, especially the policy oriented ones, are seen by them as > threatening to bring in statist control over the internet, which they (as > per their opinion) manage it is NOT their opinion that they "manage the Internet". They manage Internet resources, standards processes, coordinate protocols assignments, etc. quite well. They do not think they need any, or > any further, political inputs, Then why do they spend so much time, effort and money on things like the WSIS/IGF/OECD/$_name?? I have to say that much of the bloat of the ICANN budget that some on this list complain about so bitterly comes from such efforts. Why is it that when a group of people all have the same opinion on something, we assume there is a conspiracy? Maybe they just share the same view? What if, say, someone were to blog and accuse you and Milton and Russia and China, et. al., of coordinating efforts on this issue, it would be unfair, wouldn't it? Appearances can be deceiving. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 17 20:38:46 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:38:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] role in MAG References: <20080917210235.78197E2FDA@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48D1A316.4F53372C@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, I must strongly agree with Milton's concern here. Such "Special Advisors" in other fora have often been less than representative of those they purport to serve. Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder > I do not like the whole system of "special advisors" appointed on a discretionary basis, but if they are selecting you as one of them at least it shows some balance. as a general principle, i would prefer that there not be any special advisors and that the MAG consistent of representatives selected transparently through stakeholder nominations. > Since the system of discretionary appointments exists, it is not wrong for you to make use of it and tahnks for thinking carefully about the implications > > ________________________________ > > Van: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Verzonden: wo 17-9-2008 17:02 > Aan: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Onderwerp: [governance] role in MAG > > Hi All > > > > As a caucus co-coordinator, I consider it important to inform the caucus that the IGF secretariat had asked me to be a special advisor to the MAG chair, which I role I have accepted. I did so after some amount of thinking and clarifying with the secretariat that my IGC co-coordinator and advocacy role should and will in no way be affected by this responsibility. For the sake of transparency, I am sharing as below the email that I wrote to the IGF secretariat in this regard. I have been told that my understanding of the role as per my email is quite fine. > > > > I have convinced myself that the role of a special advisor does not conflict with my role of IGC co-coordinator. In any case, I still see the later as primary, and will act accordingly, if any circumstances of conflict, however unlikely, were to arise. In this regard, I am given to understand that almost the only really strict principle of MAG working is that of following Chatham house rules. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > (PS: Due to some internal reasons, I was asked by the secretariat to not share this information till the MAG meeting started today.) > > > > > > > > (Below is the email I wrote a few days back in response to the invitation to be a special advisor to the MAG chair) > > > > Dear Markus > > > > As you would have judged, my taking some time to think about accepting the gracious invitation to be a Special Advisor to the Chair of MAG had to do with the civil society advocacy work I do. I had to consider if this work will in any way get affected by my working in this capacity. I also needed to consult my organization. > > > > I will of course in no way be able to change anything in terms of my advocacy work - as IGC co-coordinator, where I have a little more time to go, or, even more so, the work I do on the behalf of my organization and the network of South-based civil society groups that I work with. As in engagement with any institution, advocacy positions may carry differing perspectives on various aspects of the institution's work, in this case IGF's. > > > > However, I have no doubt that I see the IGF as an extra-ordinarily important forum - even more so from a futuristic perspective - in providing new possibilities in the area of democratic global governance, apart from its cardinal role in global IG. It is exciting as well as eminently useful, in terms of my keen interest in these areas, for me to be a part of such an evolving institution. I am also completely in agreement with the mandate that WSIS has given to the IGF, and will like to see it steadily evolve in fulfilling this role, even as we figure out how best it can be done. > > > > I understand that as a special advisor my services are available to the chair to help him carry out his responsibilities. I will be able to provide assistance especially in terms of civil society perspectives, and reaching out to civil society groups and persons. > > > > As I understand it, I will not be seen as necessarily representing the 'official' MAG position if there is one, as I understand even MAG members can keep their individual distances from, as they deem fit. However I do understand the responsibilities of constructive engagement with basic purposes and activities of the IGF; and, also the need to observe the agreed rules of the MAG's internal activities, and other tasks, if any, especially those undertaken in confidence. > > > > I did not meant to make it sound like a formal acceptance speech, but the specific circumstances of involvement with civil society advocacy activities makes the issue of formal involvement with concerned institutions as something that requires some amount of careful thought. > > > > I gladly accept to be a special advisor to the MAG Chair, with the above understanding of the role. And I very much look forward to working with the Chair, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG. > > > > Best Regards > > > > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Thu Sep 18 18:46:22 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (raul at lacnic.net) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:46:22 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> Lee > Raul, > > It may be helpful to observe the facts that sparked this conversation. What you mention as "facts" are not necessarily facts. I prefer to speak about my opinions. > > Namely, from the record of written statements and interventions in this > open discussion, as well as Milton's subjective veew as reported in his > blog, it appears/looks like ITAA & ISOC & ICC & USG (& ETNO?) coordinated > to try to stifle 'debate' at IGF III. > ITAA, ICC, USG, ...... Interesting definition of "Technical community". > At IGF, not in their own fora. > > Or should I say excuse me, because I should have said they tried to > promote 'dialogue' and education instead of debate? > You can say what you find more appropriate. My view is that the "Technical community" has been engaged and committed in this process since the beggining. We have helped in a great manner not only to fund the process but also to provide contents to this process. Some of us worked very much in deep discussion since the WGIG process. > This is not a knock on IETF or LACNIC or anyone else including USG, ????? >it is > just an observation of what looks like a coordinated effort to limit > 'debate' at IGF. In which technical community representatives were one but > not the only players trying this tactic. I think that you start from false premises and so your conclusions are also false. (my opinion). I am not aware of that tactic and the only fact of including LACNIC and the USG as part of a common group, honestely, make me smile. > > So the question perhaps should be more nuanced, why is debate a good thing > in some fora but not in IGF? I can not answer this question. Can you? I think that the IGF is a good place for debates and this is only reason because I have spent so much time on this. > > Frankly it is frustrating to me that folks representing a few of the > various stakeholder 'technical' communities at the global level still try > to pull this silliness in 2008. Again, IMHO, it is not a valid premise. > > For example, I believe many would agree that perhaps the best shot at > sorting through the complexities and inter-dependencies to really make the > IPv4 to v6 transition happen, if it ever will, is multistakeholder debate > and discussion - including at IGF. Since if IPv4 to v6 was just a > technical issue for the technical community to handle itself we might > guess it would have been done long ago. > > So in my opinion the odds are the very best shot at sorting out the > holdups is a very lively debate or 2 or 3, at IGF. A technical lecture > educating the policy masses on how the bits line up would be a waste of > time and space at a policy/governance form. As an example of why 'debate' > at IGF is a good thing, and not something to be feared. Remember IGF can't > make anyone do anything, so I really don;t see what people are afraid of. > I am not afraid, who is afraid? I really hope to have good workshops for discussing these issues at IGF. Regarding IPv4-IPv6 nobody has made an effort like the RIRs to bring this issue to the table for discussion among all the stakeholders, from all the perspectives and including all the aspects of the discussion. It was the NRO who claimed for the attention of the governments to this issue, it was the NRO who asked the GAC many times to include this point in their agenda. The RIRs have organized and supporte hundreds of activities around the globe in partnership with governments, local communities, international organizations and also with the participation of civil society for promoting the discussion about this issue and also to bring more people to the policy discusion (but not only that). I really have problems to accept your facts and assertions. Our perceptions of the reality are so far one from each other, that it makes me feel that we are speaking about paralel dimensions. Raùl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 17 20:51:57 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48D1A62D.183C9C7F@ix.netcom.com> Milton and all, Thank you for you comments and insight. I and a few of our members have been following along and some are in attendance. Your take/report seems very concerning, and given Marilyn Cade of ITAA, formally of AT&T and the ISOC's offerings, your concerns seem at least reasonable, and as such very troubling. Milton L Mueller wrote: > For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF > consultationhttp://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 17 21:07:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:07:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <48D1A9C0.40AAF9B6@ix.netcom.com> Jeanette and all, I can't nor would not speak for Milton, but I believe and/or hope you are familiar with the history of IPv6 and the allocation policies for IPv4. IPv6 was controversial from the start many years ago in it's early development. As designed regarding implementation methods, it is inherently insecure, which causes safety and privacy problems that although can be overcome via various methods, cause or will cause operational interoperability problems that could have been, and in my view, should have been dealt with in the early on development, but were ignored for reason or reasons that have been clouded in miss and dis information for several years. The need/desire to reclaim unused IPv4 address space is an issue of huge proportions as allocation policy by "Friends" of the late Jon Postal was the early on policy, period. @Home, later acquired by AT&T were key later events that went a long way in creating the current shortage, which really doesn't actually exist for IPv4 addresses, of is at a minimum very much contrived. Reversing those old policies will not balance or reclaim that address space, and conversion to IPv6 being both expensive and pose both operational and security problems is not widely desired. Large IAP's especially do not wish to give up anything for the greater good, and have the $$ to fight off challenges to do so, and likely will. Regional ISP's and other types of hybrid providers, also face clear challenges that alone they cannot solve regarding address space, especially IPv4 space, which will be with us for a very long time to come. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found > puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their > mailing lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they > interact with others they take an educational stance and try to hide the > highly controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 is a > good example. Why is that? > jeanette > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF > > consultation > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 17 21:22:04 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:22:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <48D27F48.60000@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901884202@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48D1AD3B.381FC93E@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, Good point! Dialog often times does and perhaps must include debate, and often times that debate gets very heated, which IMO is, or can be a very healthy thing. However some participants in such "Dialog" often are very aggravated by heated debate as part of any dialog, and make unfortunate requests of the forum list chair or administrator to eliminate some certain participants from continuing their participation. Hence why at times openness and transparency is lost or limited in less than a proper manner. McTim wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > > Even if you believe that real policy decisions regarding addressing should > > be left in the RIRs, as I currently do, what is wrong with debating those > > policy options in a wider forum > > "WRONG" as in "EVIL" is too strong a word, perhaps "not optimal" is > better. Off the top of my head, the non-optimal things could include: > > duplication of effort > > misleading folks into thinking they have contributed to policy > development (as in "hey we talked about this at the IGF and wanted X > to happen, now Y is happening, what's up with that?") > > discouraging them from joining the policy making fora by providing a > "lite" alternative > > discouraging folk from participating in a discussion because of > cultural norms that shun confrontation > > In any case it's a tempest in a teacup AFAIAC, in reading the > transcript again, I see that all the people you accuse of "an > orchestrated move" use the word "debate" multiple times, they just > added "and dialogue". > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 17 21:29:59 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:29:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48D1AF16.23E7AA37@ix.netcom.com> Lee and all, I can clearly see many things that some people may be afraid of regarding open debate/dialog. What I do not understand is why, unless a participant might be a US citizen or Chinese citizen, in which case political too personal ramifications, although indirect may or will be forthcoming with little to no opertunity to challange or effectively address. Lee W McKnight wrote: > Raul, > > It may be helpful to observe the facts that sparked this conversation. > > Namely, from the record of written statements and interventions in > this open discussion, as well as Milton's subjective veew as reported > in his blog, it appears/looks like ITAA & ISOC & ICC & USG (& ETNO?) > coordinated to try to stifle 'debate' at IGF III. > > At IGF, not in their own fora. > > Or should I say excuse me, because I should have said they tried to > promote 'dialogue' and education instead of debate? > > This is not a knock on IETF or LACNIC or anyone else including USG, it > is just an observation of what looks like a coordinated effort to > limit 'debate' at IGF. In which technical community representatives > were one but not the only players trying this tactic. > > So the question perhaps should be more nuanced, why is debate a good > thing in some fora but not in IGF? > > Frankly it is frustrating to me that folks representing a few of the > various stakeholder 'technical' communities at the global level still > try to pull this silliness in 2008. > > For example, I believe many would agree that perhaps the best shot at > sorting through the complexities and inter-dependencies to really make > the IPv4 to v6 transition happen, if it ever will, is > multistakeholder debate and discussion - including at IGF. Since if > IPv4 to v6 was just a technical issue for the technical community to > handle itself we might guess it would have been done long ago. > > So in my opinion the odds are the very best shot at sorting out the > holdups is a very lively debate or 2 or 3, at IGF. A technical > lecture educating the policy masses on how the bits line up would be a > waste of time and space at a policy/governance form. As an example of > why 'debate' at IGF is a good thing, and not something to be feared. > Remember IGF can't make anyone do anything, so I really don;t see what > people are afraid of. > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: raul at lacnic.net [mailto:raul at lacnic.net] > Sent: Thu 9/18/2008 3:45 PM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation > > > Hi Raul, > > I guess there are a few misunderstandings... > > > > Raul Echeberria wrote: > >> Jeanette: > >> > >> i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess > that I > >> am very surprised to see you saying that. > >> The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to > >> describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists > > > > I didn't speak of closed or secret lists. I am subscribed to several > > > technical lists myself. > > It is implied in what you said. You say that technical community > members > among themselves speak in some way and in a different way when speak > with > other people. It implieas a vision according which technical community > > people only speak for technical community in their lists, and it is > not > true since all the forums are open and transparents. > > the controversies, debates, discussions and different view expressed, > simply could not be hidden. > > ........... > > > > >> It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational" > >> attitude. > > > > Milton referred to the discussion we had about the structure and > > direction of the main session on IPv4/IPv6 at the next IGF meeting. > It > > wasn't easy to come to an agreement. Different ideas about the focus > and > > the purpose of the session played a role here, as you know. > > It was not so difficult. It was the first Main session Workshop in > being > ready and perhaps we should think that the different ideas expressed > are > based in legitimate different views that anybody involved in that > discussion had. I think that there was good faith in frank and open > discussion. Is it bad? > > > > > You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep > >> frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people. > > > > Yes, this is true. And I wouldn't say that all engineers hide > > controversies. Yet, without wanting to be unfair, it is still true > that > > I am puzzled by the differences of the ways issues are presented > within > > engineering communities and outside of it. > > Different forums have different characteristics and some things that > are > proposed in the IGF for example are not proposed in other given forums > and > viceversa. > Speaking about the small part of the techical community world that > corresponds to LACNIC, we spent a lot of energies and resources in > engaging other stakeholders in the discussions with big success > fortunately trying to be everytime more open and have more > participation > (using always a single speech, not changing it according our > convenience). > Many people in this list is witness of that. > And without trying to speak on behalf of others, I know that this is > not > that only LACNIC does. > > So, it is very frustrating for me when I see the way in which you > describe > the behavior of the technical community because some people that read > that > and ignore how do we work and the efforts we make, can get a very > wrong > impression. > > > Raùl > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 17 21:32:49 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:32:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <20080918171800.6E361A6CA1@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48D1AFC1.A5A413D4@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, Here we disagree. A case in point recently vis a vi ICANN. See: Warning: Crackdown on ICANN Travel Funding Abuse http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/repayment-expenses-report-17sep08.pdf McTim wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > The technical community has some kind of distrust about spaces outside their > > own ones, which, especially the policy oriented ones, are seen by them as > > threatening to bring in statist control over the internet, which they (as > > per their opinion) manage > > it is NOT their opinion that they "manage the Internet". They manage > Internet resources, standards processes, coordinate protocols > assignments, etc. > > quite well. They do not think they need any, or > > any further, political inputs, > > Then why do they spend so much time, effort and money on things like > the WSIS/IGF/OECD/$_name?? I have to say that much of the bloat of > the ICANN budget that some on this list complain about so bitterly > comes from such efforts. > > Why is it that when a group of people all have the same opinion on > something, we assume there is a conspiracy? Maybe they just share the > same view? > > What if, say, someone were to blog and accuse you and Milton and > Russia and China, et. al., of coordinating efforts on this issue, it > would be unfair, wouldn't it? Appearances can be deceiving. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 17 23:53:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:53:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> Message-ID: <48D1D0A8.25EB8EF8@ix.netcom.com> Raul and all, What interesting, sense Lacnic's founding, they have nearly always rubber stamped, although belatedly, every ARIN or RIPE purpose that has been put forth. As such, as far as IP address policy, the differences are so minute as to be nearly entirely not precievable. raul at lacnic.net wrote: > Lee > > > Raul, > > > > It may be helpful to observe the facts that sparked this conversation. > > What you mention as "facts" are not necessarily facts. > I prefer to speak about my opinions. > > > > > Namely, from the record of written statements and interventions in this > > open discussion, as well as Milton's subjective veew as reported in his > > blog, it appears/looks like ITAA & ISOC & ICC & USG (& ETNO?) coordinated > > to try to stifle 'debate' at IGF III. > > > > ITAA, ICC, USG, ...... Interesting definition of "Technical community". > > > At IGF, not in their own fora. > > > > Or should I say excuse me, because I should have said they tried to > > promote 'dialogue' and education instead of debate? > > > > You can say what you find more appropriate. My view is that the "Technical > community" has been engaged and committed in this process since the > beggining. We have helped in a great manner not only to fund the process > but also to provide contents to this process. Some of us worked very much > in deep discussion since the WGIG process. > > > This is not a knock on IETF or LACNIC or anyone else including USG, > > ????? > > >it is > > just an observation of what looks like a coordinated effort to limit > > 'debate' at IGF. In which technical community representatives were one but > > not the only players trying this tactic. > > I think that you start from false premises and so your conclusions are > also false. (my opinion). > > I am not aware of that tactic and the only fact of including LACNIC and > the USG as part of a common group, honestely, make me smile. > > > > > So the question perhaps should be more nuanced, why is debate a good thing > > in some fora but not in IGF? > > I can not answer this question. Can you? > I think that the IGF is a good place for debates and this is only reason > because I have spent so much time on this. > > > > > Frankly it is frustrating to me that folks representing a few of the > > various stakeholder 'technical' communities at the global level still try > > to pull this silliness in 2008. > > Again, IMHO, it is not a valid premise. > > > > > For example, I believe many would agree that perhaps the best shot at > > sorting through the complexities and inter-dependencies to really make the > > IPv4 to v6 transition happen, if it ever will, is multistakeholder debate > > and discussion - including at IGF. Since if IPv4 to v6 was just a > > technical issue for the technical community to handle itself we might > > guess it would have been done long ago. > > > > So in my opinion the odds are the very best shot at sorting out the > > holdups is a very lively debate or 2 or 3, at IGF. A technical lecture > > educating the policy masses on how the bits line up would be a waste of > > time and space at a policy/governance form. As an example of why 'debate' > > at IGF is a good thing, and not something to be feared. Remember IGF can't > > make anyone do anything, so I really don;t see what people are afraid of. > > > > I am not afraid, who is afraid? > I really hope to have good workshops for discussing these issues at IGF. > Regarding IPv4-IPv6 nobody has made an effort like the RIRs to bring this > issue to the table for discussion among all the stakeholders, from all the > perspectives and including all the aspects of the discussion. > > It was the NRO who claimed for the attention of the governments to this > issue, it was the NRO who asked the GAC many times to include this point > in their agenda. > The RIRs have organized and supporte hundreds of activities around the > globe in partnership with governments, local communities, international > organizations and also with the participation of civil society for > promoting the discussion about this issue and also to bring more people to > the policy discusion (but not only that). > > I really have problems to accept your facts and assertions. Our > perceptions of the reality are so far one from each other, that it makes > me feel that we are speaking about paralel dimensions. > > Ra�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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 18 00:12:20 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:12:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <20080918171800.6E361A6CA1@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48D1D524.CF87403C@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > The technical community has some kind of distrust about spaces outside their > > own ones, which, especially the policy oriented ones, are seen by them as > > threatening to bring in statist control over the internet, which they (as > > per their opinion) manage > > it is NOT their opinion that they "manage the Internet". They manage > Internet resources, standards processes, coordinate protocols > assignments, etc. Essentially by definition mostly correct. They ( ICANN ) also are responsible under the MOU for the safety and security of the Internet. > > > quite well. They do not think they need any, or > > any further, political inputs, > > Then why do they spend so much time, effort and money on things like > the WSIS/IGF/OECD/$_name?? I have to say that much of the bloat of > the ICANN budget that some on this list complain about so bitterly > comes from such efforts. Because ICANN is in accordance with the sprit of the MOU, required to be open, transparent and most importantly, accountable to the users, whom are of many different points of views. > > > Why is it that when a group of people all have the same opinion on > something, we assume there is a conspiracy? Maybe they just share the > same view? Maybe pigs will fly some day, but I doubt it, and hopefully will not live long enough to experience such a awful evolution. Yet I am sure that the cosmetics industry has seen a jump in lipstick sales. >:) However in ICANN's case, perhaps the cosmetics industry needs a beauty product for the other end of that sow? >:) > > > What if, say, someone were to blog and accuse you and Milton and > Russia and China, et. al., of coordinating efforts on this issue, it > would be unfair, wouldn't it? Appearances can be deceiving. Of course it would, just as much as ICANN's Bod and staff accusing others for their own deficiencies. Deceit isn't a one way street. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 18 02:37:23 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:37:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] A god send or a curse?: Software Spots Spin In Political Speeches Message-ID: <48D1F722.D6622242@ix.netcom.com> All, Well this will be interesting at least... Perhaps useful or perhaps not? See: According to an article in NewScientist Tech, there is now software that can identify the http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19926746.200-software-spots-the-spin-in-political-speeches.html amount of spin in a politician or candidate's speech. From the article, 'Blink and you would have missed it. The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second. But to Paul Ekman it was glaringly obvious. "Given that he probably feels jilted that his wife Hillary didn't get the nomination, I would have to say that the entire speech was actually given very gracefully," says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years.' The article goes on to analyze the amount of spin in each of the candidates running for president, and the results are that Obama spins the most. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 19 06:32:30 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:32:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023C95B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Raul, > -----Original Message----- > I am not afraid, who is afraid? > I really hope to have good workshops for discussing these issues at IGF. > Regarding IPv4-IPv6 nobody has made an effort like the RIRs to bring this > issue to the table for discussion among all the stakeholders, from all the > perspectives and including all the aspects of the discussion. Good, it sounds like we are in violent agreement. Then I hope that the panel selections for the main session will reflect policy diversity and the need for expression of contrasting policy views. As you know, there were efforts in the IPv4-IPv6 session to confine it to a technical education and there were also some rather pointed efforts (not from you) to keep me and other people with the "wrong" views off the 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Sep 19 06:35:05 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:35:05 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262BF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0E919@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262C0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here is the US Statement from September 16, 2008: We recall that the establishment of the IGF was one of the key outputs of WSIS where world leaders asked the U.N. Secretary-General in an open and inclusive process to convene this new multistakeholder policy dialogue as well as to report to the U.N. member states periodically. We reiterate our commitment to the results of WSIS. The promise of the IGF, which is an open and inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders of the international Internet community, to discuss critical issues concerning the future of the Internet is viewed by the United States as a positive development. The United States continues to believe that the IGF should be a truly multistakeholder event. Therefore, it is important that processes and procedures be as transparent as possible. The United States again thanks the IGF Secretariat and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group for continuing to facilitate this dialogue and for coordinating the program, agenda and format in Hyderabad in December 2008. We also would like to endorse the comments made by ISOC on the program agenda in August 2008. We anticipate that we will offer additional views on other appropriate occasions regarding the program, agenda, and forum of the third meeting. Two Points, in my eyes, are worth to notice: 1. USG supports a periodical reporting by the UN SG to the UN member states on IG issues. 2. USG sees the discussions of "critical issues concerning the future of the Internet" by the IGF as a "positive development". This sounds different from some langue we heard in 2005 by some member of the US congress. Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sendt: to 18-09-2008 23:06 Til: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org Emne: RE: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation I wrote a blog that was already quite long. I did not "ignore" specific contributions, just didn't mention them, along with about 30 others. Anyway, the Russians and Chinese came out in favor of debate and open discussion of controversial issues. There are ironies here, admittedly. One could ask why governments that suppress dissent at home are eager to allow it in an international forum, just as one can ask why communities that enjoy robust debate internally try to suppress it externally. But the answers are pretty obvious, for those of us who see these exchanges as based on strategic pursuit of their own interests. I don't know why you mention the US intervention my recollection is that there was nothing interesting about it (as usual) but perhaps I missed something. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > > I am surprised that Milton in his blog did ignore the statements of the > governments of China, Russia and US. Interesting interventions and worth > to read in the transcripts. > 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 Fri Sep 19 09:37:44 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:37:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023C95B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023C95B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: El 19/09/2008, a las 07:32 a.m., Milton L Mueller escribió: > Raul, > > >> -----Original Message----- >> I am not afraid, who is afraid? >> I really hope to have good workshops for discussing these issues at > IGF. >> Regarding IPv4-IPv6 nobody has made an effort like the RIRs to bring > this >> issue to the table for discussion among all the stakeholders, from >> all > the >> perspectives and including all the aspects of the discussion. > > Good, it sounds like we are in violent agreement. Then I hope that the > panel selections for the main session will reflect policy diversity > and > the need for expression of contrasting policy views. As you know, > there > were efforts in the IPv4-IPv6 session to confine it to a technical > education and there were also some rather pointed efforts (not from > you) > to keep me and other people with the "wrong" views off the panel. This is a different issue. There are many reasons for which some could prefer one speaker or another. I remember that you were in the CIR main session panel last year, so you can not say that exist a generic veto over you. Raùl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 19 09:43:58 2008 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:43:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023C95B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5032@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> See we're all happy now, just needed a little debate. : ) Lee -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Fri 9/19/2008 6:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; raul at lacnic.net; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation Raul, > -----Original Message----- > I am not afraid, who is afraid? > I really hope to have good workshops for discussing these issues at IGF. > Regarding IPv4-IPv6 nobody has made an effort like the RIRs to bring this > issue to the table for discussion among all the stakeholders, from all the > perspectives and including all the aspects of the discussion. Good, it sounds like we are in violent agreement. Then I hope that the panel selections for the main session will reflect policy diversity and the need for expression of contrasting policy views. As you know, there were efforts in the IPv4-IPv6 session to confine it to a technical education and there were also some rather pointed efforts (not from you) to keep me and other people with the "wrong" views off the panel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Sep 19 09:48:00 2008 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:48:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5032@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023C95B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5032@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <48D3AD90.6090909@wzb.eu> Sorry if I caused this debate. I really didn't mean to offend anybody. jeanette Lee W McKnight wrote: > See we're all happy now, just needed a little debate. : ) > > Lee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Fri 9/19/2008 6:32 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; raul at lacnic.net; Lee W McKnight > Subject: RE: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation > > Raul, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > I am not afraid, who is afraid? > > I really hope to have good workshops for discussing these issues at IGF. > > Regarding IPv4-IPv6 nobody has made an effort like the RIRs to bring this > > issue to the table for discussion among all the stakeholders, from > all the > > perspectives and including all the aspects of the discussion. > > Good, it sounds like we are in violent agreement. Then I hope that the > panel selections for the main session will reflect policy diversity and > the need for expression of contrasting policy views. As you know, there > were efforts in the IPv4-IPv6 session to confine it to a technical > education and there were also some rather pointed efforts (not from you) > to keep me and other people with the "wrong" views off the 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 raul at lacnic.net Fri Sep 19 10:18:52 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:18:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation In-Reply-To: <48D3AD90.6090909@wzb.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018841FC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <48D26A38.4040903@wzb.eu> <6D0256F0-1CDC-4182-A0D7-23217E29F94E@lacnic.net> <48D28B19.8090503@wzb.eu> <4275.80.28.2.148.1221767137.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5030@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <1132.80.28.2.148.1221777982.squirrel@webmail.lacnic.net.uy> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023C95B2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <63EEA1034C8EF14ABF56503CDC9A646E3D5032@SUEXCL-03.ad.syr.edu> <48D3AD90.6090909@wzb.eu> Message-ID: El 19/09/2008, a las 10:48 a.m., Jeanette Hofmann escribió: > Sorry if I caused this debate. I really didn't mean to offend anybody. You didn't do that. Raùl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 20 21:31:55 2008 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:31:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Flights to Hyderabad Message-ID: <609019df0809201831g5dfdfecag69219e714f40518@mail.gmail.com> Dear All: For all of you who would like to know which Airlines have flights to Hyderabad, I would like to pass you the following information: Direct Flights to Hyderabad from Europe: Lufthansa www.lufthansa.com British Airways www.ba.com KLM www.klm.com Air India (from Frankfurt) home.airindia.in If you were not lucky to have a direct flight, you may connect through the Gulf region, the following carriers all have direct flights from their countries to Hyderabad and they have good connections from Europe, North America and South America: Emirates Airlines www.emirates.com Qatar Airways www.qatarairways.com Gulf Air (Bahrain) www.gulfair.com Oman Air www.omanair.aero Kuwait Airways www.kuwaitairways.com I hope to see you all in Hyderabad. Regards, Qusai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 21 00:22:50 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:22:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [A2k] EFF and PK filed suit against USTR demanding information about the secret IP enforcement treaty (ACTA)] Message-ID: <48D5CC1A.5ED50429@ix.netcom.com> All, As an FYI. Please distribute freely and widely. This is very scary stuff, IMO! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] EFF and PK filed suit against USTR demanding information about the secret IP enforcement treaty (ACTA) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:12:22 -0400 From: Manon Ress To: a2k discuss list http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/09/17 September 18th, 2008 U.S. Trade Office Withholds Documents on Secret IP Enforcement Treaty Public Kept in the Dark About Serious Civil Liberties and Privacy Issues Washington, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge have filed suit against the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), demanding information about a secret intellectual property enforcement treaty that the government has put on a fast track to completion. The United States, Canada, the European Community, Switzerland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates are currently negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The full text of the treaty remains secret, but a document leaked to the public shows that ACTA could include criminal measures, increased border search powers, and encouragement for Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders. Despite the significant impact ACTA could have on consumers and the lack of official information available to the public, treaty proponents want a deal signed by the end of the year. "ACTA raises serious concerns for citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights," said EFF International Policy Director Gwen Hinze. "This treaty could potentially change the way your computer is searched at the border or spark new invasive monitoring from your ISP. People need to see the full text of ACTA now, so that they can evaluate its impact on their lives and express that opinion to their political leaders. Instead, the USTR is keeping us in the dark while talks go on behind closed doors." Because of the questions raised by ACTA, EFF and Public Knowledge filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in June for records on the treaty and the negotiations surrounding the deal. EFF and Public Knowledge later clarified the scope of their request in July in response to concerns raised by the USTR. But the USTR still failed to provide any relevant documents. "The lack of transparency in this process is incredibly alarming," said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. "Whatever form ACTA eventually takes, we can be sure it will be used to justify further international agreements and laws. The agreement text needs to be made public to ensure that it doesn't encroach upon the rights of users, consumers, and citizens to access knowledge, information, and content." Earlier this week, EFF and Public Knowledge joined more than 100 public interest organizations from around the world calling for answers about ACTA. The coalition is asking for treaty negotiators to immediately publish the draft text of the agreement, as well as pre- draft discussion papers. For the full complaint: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_PK_v_USTR/USTRcomplaint.pdf For more on ACTA: http://www.eff.org/issues/acta/ Contacts: Gwen Hinze International Affairs Director Electronic Frontier Foundation gwen at eff.org Art Brodsky Communications Director Public Knowledge abrodsky at publicknowledge.org Related Issues: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Related Cases: EFF and Public Knowledge v. USTR [Permalink] *************************************************************************** Manon Ress manon.ress at keionline.org Knowledge Ecology International 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Mon Sep 22 07:25:33 2008 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:25:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Flights to Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <609019df0809201831g5dfdfecag69219e714f40518@mail.gmail.com> References: <609019df0809201831g5dfdfecag69219e714f40518@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48D79CCD.4493.1AD00FC4@anriette.apc.org> For those of you coming from South America or Southern Africa South African flies to Mumbai several times a week with good connections from there to Hyderabad. With daily flights from Sao Paulo this is a good way to get to India from the south eastern parts of South America without having to go back to Europe. www.flysaa.com Anriette Date sent: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:31:55 +0300 From: "Qusai AlShatti" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, igf_members at intgovforum.org Subject: [governance] Flights to Hyderabad Send reply to: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Qusai AlShatti" > Dear All: > For all of you who would like to know which Airlines have flights to > Hyderabad, I would like to pass you the following information: > > Direct Flights to Hyderabad from Europe: > Lufthansa www.lufthansa.com > British Airways www.ba.com > KLM www.klm.com > Air India (from Frankfurt) home.airindia.in > > If you were not lucky to have a direct flight, you may connect through > the Gulf region, the following carriers all have direct flights from > their countries to Hyderabad and they have good connections from > Europe, North America and South America: Emirates Airlines > www.emirates.com Qatar Airways www.qatarairways.com Gulf Air (Bahrain) > www.gulfair.com Oman Air www.omanair.aero Kuwait Airways > www.kuwaitairways.com > > I hope to see you all in Hyderabad. > > Regards, > > Qusai > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Sep 22 07:50:43 2008 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:50:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Flights to Hyderabad In-Reply-To: <609019df0809201831g5dfdfecag69219e714f40518@mail.gmail.com> References: <609019df0809201831g5dfdfecag69219e714f40518@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <609019df0809201831g5dfdfecag69219e714f40518 at mail.gmail.com>, at 04:31:55 on Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Qusai AlShatti writes >For all of you who would like to know which Airlines have flights to >Hyderabad, I would like to pass you the following information: >British Airways www.ba.com BA service commences on the 6th December, so eager plane-spotters might consider getting the inaugural return flight. But at £1888 current cheapest economy fare, only for the rich! -- 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 Tue Sep 23 19:18:40 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:18:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] Ad Hoc Working Group on IGC processes Message-ID: Hi Everyone, At various times over the last 12 months suggestions have been raised on this list as regards changes to the IGC charter. There do appear to be a few small changes which would be useful, but for these to be accepted the Caucus has to vote to approve. So a bit of process is involved to have these agreed to and accepted, and it would be best to deal with all changes in one vote. As not everyone wants to be involved in process discussions, I invite those interested to join an ad hoc working group to work on a consensus proposal on recommended changes to the charter. Both Avri and McTim who have expressed interest in these issues in the past have kindly agreed to participate, and everyone interested is invited. You can join at http://ipeverywhere.com/mailman/listinfo/igcharter_ipeverywhere.com . The Terms of Reference for the Ad HocWorking Group are 1. To develop a consensus proposal (if possible) on changes to the IGC Charter and present the full proposal to the IGC on completion 2. To attempt to complete its work by end October 2008 and disband after presenting its findings to the Caucus 3. During the development period, to bring back to the main IGC mailing list any matters under discussion for which there is strong support but no consensus, or on which the AHWG decides the input of the main list is advisable. Please if you are interested in these issues join the mailing list for the Ad Hoc Working Group. . Your input will be very welcome! Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Tue Sep 23 19:28:12 2008 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:28:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Summary of last MAG meeting Message-ID: <48D97B8C.8050008@panos-ao.org> Please see here http://www.intgovforum.org/MAG_Schedule_LOP.pdf To be noted: (quote) The following deadlines were set: 25 September: • Lists of panellists for the panel discussions. 30 September: • Submission of final programme for all workshops, best practice forums, open forums and Dynamic Coalition meetings. • Submission of Dynamic Coalition activity reports. The MAG also discussed how to approach the “formal consultations with Forum participants” on the “desirability of the continuation of the Forum” as stipulated by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda. It was agreed to set aside one day during the next February consultations to gain a common understanding on how best to conduct this process. It was concluded that it was the Secretary- General’s prerogative to decide on how to hold these formal consultations, including whether or not to request an outside evaluation. (unquote) 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 22 22:32:03 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:32:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ad Hoc Working Group on IGC processes References: Message-ID: <48D85523.AFCB505@ix.netcom.com> Ian and all, I signed up. I hope it will be a productive and respectful endeavor. Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > At various times over the last 12 months suggestions have been raised > on this list as regards changes to the IGC charter. There do appear to > be a few small changes which would be useful, but for these to be > accepted the Caucus has to vote to approve. So a bit of process is > involved to have these agreed to and accepted, and it would be best to > deal with all changes in one vote. > > As not everyone wants to be involved in process discussions, I invite > those interested to join an ad hoc working group to work on a > consensus proposal on recommended changes to the charter. Both Avri > and McTim who have expressed interest in these issues in the past have > kindly agreed to participate, and everyone interested is invited. You > can join at > http://ipeverywhere.com/mailman/listinfo/igcharter_ipeverywhere.com . > > The Terms of Reference for the Ad HocWorking Group are > > 1. To develop a consensus proposal (if possible) on changes to the > IGC Charter and present the full proposal to the IGC on > completion > 2. To attempt to complete its work by end October 2008 and disband > after presenting its findings to the Caucus > 3. During the development period, to bring back to the main IGC > mailing list any matters under discussion for which there is > strong support but no consensus, or on which the AHWG decides the > input of the main list is advisable. > > Please if you are interested in these issues join the mailing list for > the Ad Hoc Working Group. . Your input will be very welcome! > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 24 05:29:03 2008 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:29:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] EURODIG References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) Strasbourg, 20-21 October 2008 Hosted by the Council of Europe Room G03, AGORABuilding, Strasbourg Confirmed Speakers/Participants (inter alia): · Erika Mann, Member of the European Parliament · Maud de Boer Bucquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe · Richard Sweteham, European Commission DG InfoSoc · Markus Kummer, IGF Executive Secretary, · Bertrand de la Chappelle, Envoy of the Information Society of the French Foreign Ministry · Yrjö Lensipuro, Finish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ICANN GAC · Benoit Mueller, Business Software Alliance · Ilkka Lakaniemi, Nokia Siemens Networks · Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce, BASIS · Emilie Taylor, NOMINET · Anette Muehlberg, ver.di, ICANN/ALAC · Avri Doria, Lulea Technology University, ICANN GNSO · Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus · Bill Drake, Graduate Institute for Higher International and Development Studies in Geneva 1. Platform to discuss and shape European multi-stakeholder perspectives on Internet governance (universal access, security, privacy and openness on the Internet, critical Internet resources). 2. Priority given to moderated audience-led discussion (no formal presentations/powerpoints) between all stakeholders (representatives of business, civil society, governments, international organisations, etc.). 3. Visibility to and linking of different European initiatives related to Internet governance, including planned European-led workshops held at the global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2008 in Hyderabad, India. 4. Reach out to/for European actors who will not be able to participate in the 2008 IGF in India. 5. Discuss future plans and initiatives for European dialogue on Internet governance. 6. Report back to the 2008 IGF in India about European perspectives and initiatives There is no Conference fee but participants should register under www.eurodig.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Programme 2 09 2008.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29696 bytes Desc: Programme 2 09 2008.doc URL: From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 23 09:12:29 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:12:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [ga] Proposed Bylaws Revision Open For Comment] Message-ID: <48D8EB3D.FAD40499@ix.netcom.com> All, As an FYI. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed Bylaws Revision Open For Comment Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:08:24 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: Glen de Saint Géry , Ga ,nomcom-bylaw-revision at icann.org, GAC Rep CC: icann board ,Karl Auerbach References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D788D70AB27F at EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Glen and all, Our members position on this issue has not changed, diversity is far less important than having the choice of the stakeholders/users serve by election not by any Nominating committee, in any and all ICANN Bod member positions. So far in ICANN's history only Karl Auerbach is the only past Bod member to serve as such. Domicile or Citizenship is far less important for any Bod member than is expertise and the choice of the stakeholders/users. Such a gerrymandering idea of Domicile or Citizenship only serves to force less qualified and capable individuals as Bod members of any company. Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23sep08-en.htm > Proposed Bylaws Revision Open For Comment > > 23 September 2008 > > Today ICANN is opening a public comment period on a proposed bylaw revision [PDF, 21K] from the ICANN Nominating Committee. The proposed revision would update the diversity requirements for selecting ICANN Board members to include domicile with country of citizenship. > > Over the past several years, the Nominating Committee has expressed concern that being required to count more than one country of citizenship for diversity purposes often makes it difficult to select the best candidates for the Board seats that the Nominating Committee is mandated to fill. In carrying out its responsibilities to fill Seats 1 through 8, the Nominating Committee shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members who in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Bylaws. > > The Nominating Committee also noted that some of the candidates have often lived in a country for many years, and thereby better represent the interests of that country than any country of which the candidates may be citizens. > > In the proposal, domicile, not just citizenship, is to be considered in the diversity calculation. The Nominating Committee members unanimously agreed that the proposed Bylaws revisions would alleviate the concerns. > > During the 28 August 2008 meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, the Board passed the following resolution: > > Whereas, the Nominating Committee has expressed concern that, pursuant to the Bylaws mandated diversity requirements that no more than five Board members be citizens of any one geographic region, the Nominating Committee is required to count all countries of citizenship for each candidate. > > Whereas, the Nominating Committee has noted that the requirement to count all countries of citizenship has caused some selection difficulties each year over the past several years. > > Whereas, the Nominating Committee has also expressed concern that the calculation is presently limited to citizenship given that many people have lived for long periods of time in, and represent the interests of, countries in which they may not be citizens. > > Whereas, making a diversity calculation pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws as it relates to Board member selection for seats 1 through 14 should be consistent. > > It is hereby resolved (2008.08.28.03) that the following proposed revisions to Article VI, Sections 2.2 and 2.3, shall be posted for public comment in accordance with ICANN's normal process for proposed Bylaw revisions. > > Comments on the proposed bylaw revision may be submitted to nomcom-bylaw-revision at icann.org will be considered until 23 October 2008 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/nomcom-bylaw-revision/. > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Wed Sep 24 18:48:39 2008 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:48:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] EURODIG In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48DAC3C7.9080704@isoc.be> Dear all, I herewith confirm the participation of ISOC-ECC, which I will personally represent at the meetings in Strasbourg during EURODIG. I'm willing to moderate a debate if needed; will certainly present the case ISOC-ECC will present at IGF in Hyderabad. Best regards, Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw Vice-chair ISOC European Chapters Coordinating Council Board member EURALO (ALAC-ICANN) /Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen Belgium GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 - Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ www.isoc.be - www.isoc.eu - www.euralo.org Kleinwächter schreef: > > > > > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) > Strasbourg, 20-21 October 2008 > > Hosted by the Council of Europe Room G03, AGORABuilding, Strasbourg > > > > > > Confirmed Speakers/Participants (inter alia): > > · Erika Mann, Member of the European Parliament > > · Maud de Boer Bucquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe > > · Richard Sweteham, European Commission DG InfoSoc > > · Markus Kummer, IGF Executive Secretary, > > · Bertrand de la Chappelle, Envoy of the Information Society of the French Foreign Ministry > > · Yrjö Lensipuro, Finish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ICANN GAC > > · Benoit Mueller, Business Software Alliance > > · Ilkka Lakaniemi, Nokia Siemens Networks > > · Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce, BASIS > > · Emilie Taylor, NOMINET > > · Anette Muehlberg, ver.di, ICANN/ALAC > > · Avri Doria, Lulea Technology University, ICANN GNSO > > · Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus > > · Bill Drake, Graduate Institute for Higher International and Development Studies in Geneva > > > > 1. Platform to discuss and shape European multi-stakeholder perspectives on Internet governance (universal access, security, privacy and openness on the Internet, critical Internet resources). > > 2. Priority given to moderated audience-led discussion (no formal presentations/powerpoints) between all stakeholders (representatives of business, civil society, governments, international organisations, etc.). > > 3. Visibility to and linking of different European initiatives related to Internet governance, including planned European-led workshops held at the global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2008 in Hyderabad, India. > > 4. Reach out to/for European actors who will not be able to participate in the 2008 IGF in India. > > 5. Discuss future plans and initiatives for European dialogue on Internet governance. > > 6. Report back to the 2008 IGF in India about European perspectives and initiatives > > > > There is no Conference fee but participants should register under www.eurodig.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 - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1685 - Release Date: 22/09/2008 16:08 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.2/1689 - Release Date: 24/09/2008 18:51 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 23 21:47:54 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:47:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [At-Large] NCUC Capture Plans References: <81295.78473.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48D99C49.EF614549@ix.netcom.com> Danny and all, This is really nothing new nor surprising. The NCUC is vying for more power as they have had little if any to date. This is not to say that such a capture attempt is a good thing, but currently the IP folks have had basic control, why not a CHANGE in direction? Danny Younger wrote: > The NCUC is putting forward a plan to capture the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder's Group by calling for plenum voting to select Council representatives. This plan would ensure that their established constituency (with a large number of organizational member) would outvote any new constituency (with a smaller amount of members) and would thereby elect all of the House's Council representatives to the detriment of any other noncommercial constituent group that seeks a representative opportunity. > > Consider the plan as put forward by Milton Mueller to the NCUC list: > > Issue 5 – Implementation; > > NCUC favors rapid implementation of the new bicameral voting structure. We strongly support January 2009 as the time frame for starting with the new council structure, and see many costs and no benefits from deferring this. Delay will turn the current GNSO and Council into lame ducks that accomplish nothing for an extended period of time, and will sow confusion among noncommercial entities we are getting into ICANN. > > We plan to develop a new charter for a NCSG in time for the Cairo meeting, where we will discuss it with ALAC and reach agreement on principles if not all the details. > > In anticipation of the transition, we will be electing 6 rather than 3 Council representatives in our Fall election, knowing that the bottom 3 of the top 6 candidates will have to wait to be seated, or may not be seated. > > As part of this new charter, we are developing a plan for the bottom up recognition of new constituencies within the NCSG. We have already come up with an outline of a simple 4-step process. The key to making this work is to de-link constituency recognition from the right to elect a specific number of Council seats. We believe that the NCSG member organizations should vote as a plenum for Council seats. This would more fairly reflect the will of the stakeholder group, and incent constituencies who want to elect people to the Council to conduct outreach to get new organizations to join. It also maintains an integrated communication and administrative structure among all the constituencies. It also handles more adroitly the problem of constituencies that overlap. Noncommercial groups simply cannot afford to maintain duplicate organizational overhead and duplicate procedures. We believe that noncommercial user groups have already suffered greatly from the > fragmentation of noncommercial participation into NCUC and ALSs, and do not want to see that division maintained. Each constituency, however, would place a representative on the NCSG Executive Committee. > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 23 21:57:09 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:57:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] EURODIG References: <20080208080048.B51B2A6C9E@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A842595F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A84262F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <48DAC3C7.9080704@isoc.be> Message-ID: <48D99E75.29C2C862@ix.netcom.com> Rudi and all, So that no ones privacy and security is violated or threatned, would you be so kind to ask your systems admin or DNS admin to clean up your Domain Names DNS? See:http://member.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnslite.php?r=homepage&domain=isoc.be and http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=isoc.be&token=0050c2e79704a4841171318202623019 Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Dear all, > > I herewith confirm the participation of ISOC-ECC, which I will > personally represent at the meetings in Strasbourg during EURODIG. I'm > willing to moderate a debate if needed; will certainly present the case > ISOC-ECC will present at IGF in Hyderabad. > > Best regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw > Vice-chair ISOC European Chapters Coordinating Council > Board member EURALO (ALAC-ICANN) > > /Dendermondesteenweg 143 > B-9070 Destelbergen > Belgium > GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 - Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ > www.isoc.be - www.isoc.eu - > www.euralo.org > > Kleinwächter schreef: > > > > > > > > > > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) > > Strasbourg, 20-21 October 2008 > > > > Hosted by the Council of Europe Room G03, AGORABuilding, Strasbourg > > > > > > > > > > > > Confirmed Speakers/Participants (inter alia): > > > > · Erika Mann, Member of the European Parliament > > > > · Maud de Boer Bucquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe > > > > · Richard Sweteham, European Commission DG InfoSoc > > > > · Markus Kummer, IGF Executive Secretary, > > > > · Bertrand de la Chappelle, Envoy of the Information Society of the French Foreign Ministry > > > > · Yrjö Lensipuro, Finish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ICANN GAC > > > > · Benoit Mueller, Business Software Alliance > > > > · Ilkka Lakaniemi, Nokia Siemens Networks > > > > · Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce, BASIS > > > > · Emilie Taylor, NOMINET > > > > · Anette Muehlberg, ver.di, ICANN/ALAC > > > > · Avri Doria, Lulea Technology University, ICANN GNSO > > > > · Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus > > > > · Bill Drake, Graduate Institute for Higher International and Development Studies in Geneva > > > > > > > > 1. Platform to discuss and shape European multi-stakeholder perspectives on Internet governance (universal access, security, privacy and openness on the Internet, critical Internet resources). > > > > 2. Priority given to moderated audience-led discussion (no formal presentations/powerpoints) between all stakeholders (representatives of business, civil society, governments, international organisations, etc.). > > > > 3. Visibility to and linking of different European initiatives related to Internet governance, including planned European-led workshops held at the global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2008 in Hyderabad, India. > > > > 4. Reach out to/for European actors who will not be able to participate in the 2008 IGF in India. > > > > 5. Discuss future plans and initiatives for European dialogue on Internet governance. > > > > 6. Report back to the 2008 IGF in India about European perspectives and initiatives > > > > > > > > There is no Conference fee but participants should register under www.eurodig.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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1685 - Release Date: 22/09/2008 16:08 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 outgoing message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.2/1689 - Release Date: 24/09/2008 18:51 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 24 04:35:08 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:35:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Chicago Law Firm, Jones and Day Sues Over Hyperlink To Trademarked Name Message-ID: <48D9FBBC.8BB76475@ix.netcom.com> All, A blast from the past has raised it's ugly head again! Looks like the RIAA and IPC boys, Jones & Day the scorage of Tradmark law and former legal representative of ICANN, are out for a easy kill. But maybe not so fast... Does this have serious implications for freedom of expression and speech, as well as "Fair use"? You bet it does! Does this demonstrate where ICANN really sits? IMO, there is no doubt. Does this case have potential for major implications on hyperlinking and the normal use of the World Wide Web? Absolutely! Does this case have Internet governance and Internet bill of Rights implications? Without a doubt! Does this case have serious privacy considerations? Not really as public information is not a privacy issue, but Jones & Day clearly think so... Does this seem like a new legal stratagy of the IPC crowd in taking on a little fish and doing so in a way that is bullying and intimidating to gain body or legal presidence? I definately think so... See: Large Chicago law firm http://www.jonesday.com/ Jones Day are suing internet startup http://www.blockshopper.com/welcome/ BlockShopper over http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080918-federal-lawsuits-take-on-the-humble-hyperlink.html the issue of whether linking to a business with their trademarked name should be legal. It would seem they are using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution trademark dilution as a tool to get BlockShopper to cease linking to their website. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-eff-claim-that-consent-needed-for-linking-is-preposterous.html The EFF has filed an amicus curiae, as might be expected. If Jones Day wins this suit, anyone linking using a trademarked name may be in legal hot water." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From renate.bloem at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 13:11:49 2008 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:11:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] new leadership at WIPO Message-ID: <20080926171201.3C3AF70000B7@mwinf2b18.orange.fr> Thought this was of interest, Best ------------------------- Intellectual Property Watch 22 September 2008 Idris Bids WIPO Farewell; Newly Appointed DG Gurry Outlines Initiatives Posted by William New @ 9:14 pm Link This Article Leave a Comment Print By William New Australian Francis Gurry became the next in a short list of leaders of the World Intellectual Property Organization Monday, and promptly signalled a programme of increased multilateralism and bolstered global and local relevance for the United Nations body. Gurry’s appointment to director general followed an emotional farewell to WIPO by Kamil Idris, who held the top spot for 11 years. The change brought with it a general mood of hope among staff, governments and stakeholders that divisions within the organisation will be put to rest. Gurry, who will take office on 1 October until 2014, laid out the makings of a diverse programme with several new initiatives aimed at boosting multilateralism of intellectual property policy, and at putting WIPO at the forefront of its field. He plans to announce his detailed strategy on 20 October, consulting with members until a meeting of the WIPO Programme and Budget Committee approves a new budget in December. Gurry said urgent attention is needed for the backlog in the patent system; the impact of the internet on copyright; counterfeiting and piracy; using intellectual property to reduce the global “knowledge gap” and build capacity in least-developed countries; and lack of protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions (folklore). Idris farewell speech here [pdf] Gurry acceptance speech here [pdf] Multilateral Mantra Gurry touched on issues of interest to a wide spectrum of stakeholders. On patents, he said the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which he called “the backbone of this organisation,” is well-suited to address the backlog and problems of quality in patent offices around the world. “The PCT provides a better basis for constructing the future solution than any other one under consideration or in the range of current imagination,” he said. In copyright, the 19th century Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was one of the origins of WIPO, Gurry said, and in the 21st century WIPO still is the best place for global solutions to be discussed on the digital distribution of creative works. The organisation spent 10 years until 2007 unsuccessfully negotiating a treaty on broadcasters’ rights that was seen as backward-looking, but is now moving into new ideas such as a possible treaty on limitations and exceptions to copyright. He called such a treaty “entirely possible.” Gurry said the 20th century model of returning value to the creators, performers and their “business associates” is “under the most radical of threats” from digital technology and the internet. He cautioned against an unintentional move by default to a private law system of rights, and gave a nod to copyright holders in pointing out that “in each country, there are many more consumers than creators and performers, making political management of the discussion uncomfortable.” A new stronger chord was struck by Gurry on the issue of protection against illegal downloading of music and film from the internet, and against counterfeit products. He restated the assertion that organised crime has become a “major participant.” As some nations have begun actively negotiating stronger protections outside WIPO, he said it is time for WIPO to ask whether its role on enforcement should be limited to awareness-raising and training, or a “more robust engagement” possibly with other organisations. The issue is a global one, not regional, he told reporters, and while not closing other efforts, WIPO should become the central point for the process. Copyright industry representatives told Intellectual Property Watch they welcome more discussion in WIPO about enforcement, but were sceptical of the organisation’s ability to move the issues quickly enough. So they were lukewarm to the idea of a centralised discussion on enforcement in WIPO to the exclusion of other initiatives such as ACTA. New Initiatives Gurry devoted significant attention to the idea of using intellectual property to reduce the gap in knowledge and increase participation in the benefits of innovation and the knowledge economy. To this end, he called for translating “political consensus into concrete and effective projects.” WIPO can construct a “global knowledge infrastructure, comprising public, freely available databases of technological and scientific information and operating on common standards for data interchange,” he said. He said WIPO also could help countries to adopt national intellectual property and innovation strategies, and he plans to boost human and financial resources to the Least Developed Countries Division created by Idris. Another initiative will be to create an economic research and statistics division to provide member states with impact studies to analyse national processes and new developments affecting the IP world and WIPO. Finally, he called for the years-long discussion and negotiation about protection of traditional knowledge and folklore to move to concrete outcomes. He did not, however, mention genetic resources. Gurry said his ideas reflected the views of members and stakeholders. The role of WIPO in policymaking is, “We propose, they dispose,” he told reporters. New Era of WIPO’s Global Relevance Gurry also proposed a new division in the secretariat focussing on the contribution intellectual property and WIPO can make within the collection action against these global challenges. The organisation needs to become more relevant by participating in the global discussion on climate change, desertification, epidemics, access to health care, food security, and the preservation of biodiversity, he said. “Policies designed to stimulate the creation and diffusion of technology are directly relevant to the consideration of the ways in which the global community can respond to the problems,” he said. And intellectual property rights exist to stimulate creation and innovation, he said. The organisation must increase cooperation with other organisations, including UN bodies, Gurry said. He promised to create “trusted communication” between stakeholders and improve organisational communications and dialogue. The organisation is expected to keep a similar level budget next year as this year, Gurry told the press briefing, as demand for its services is expected to decline with the economic downturn while fees increase, making for a similar level of revenues. But he expects there to be some new positions to be advertised, such as in economic research and statistical analysis, and scientific skills, as well as “IP experts.” “We need new skills in the organisation,” he said. Next Round of Political Jockeying Despite the seeming sigh of relief about the end of the DG race by all those at WIPO headquarters Monday, the next round of political jockeying is only just beginning. There will be several deputy director general positions to be filled – starting with the one Gurry just left open, and several assistant director general positions as well. The process of member states lobbying the director general, Gurry, to have their candidate nominated by him has likely already begun. He will likely suggest names in the new year and the Coordination Committee, WIPO members’ executive body, will likely hold a meeting in May or June to choose. Gurry told reporters that he did not anticipate his vacated position being filled before the committee meeting next year. There may be other top positions to fill as part of Gurry’s personal cabinet. The transition team that worked to prepare the organisation for a new director general did not focus on decisions, but more practical matters, he said. A Respectful Farewell Meanwhile, Idris’s last address at WIPO included a long list of achievements of the organisation under his leadership. Officials gave Idris an honourable farewell despite the disruption of his term over a loss of confidence in his ability to govern the organisation. “Kamil Idris has made WIPO, if not yet a household name, then certainly we might say a famous brand,” said Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, the General Assembly chair. Gurry thanked him and noted that he and Idris were colleagues at WIPO for 23 of Gurry’s 25 years at the organisation. Idris indicated that he would be returning to Sudan. Members Look to Future Brazil, whose candidate José Graça Aranha lost to Gurry by a single vote, 42 to 41, told the plenary that the future director general would have to construct consensus, and made several policy suggestions. For instance, WIPO must work to centralise efforts by governments on enforcement of intellectual property rights, which has become dispersed to places like the World Customs Organization and UN Universal Postal Union. They also urged progress on the Development Agenda, and in the Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Up to last week Brazil and a few other nations continued to examine the possibility of requesting a vote in the assembly on Gurry’s nomination. On Friday night, however, a letter of support for Gurry was sent by the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, which includes Brazil. If a vote were held, it would take one-third of WIPO membership to overturn Gurry’s nomination, and sources said that support appeared to be lacking. Asked whether Graça Aranha would receive a promotion in WIPO, Idris simply said there have been no decisions and that he is a “valued colleague.” Pakistan, whose candidate Masood Khan placed a competitive third in the nomination process, spoke on behalf of the Asian Group and praised Gurry, noting “with satisfaction that the cloud of uncertainty that had settled over WIPO for the last year is finally lifted.” United States Ambassador Warren Tichenor, on behalf of the Group B developed nations (which led the push for leadership change), thanked the staff of WIPO for enduring an “often time tumultuous year of transition.” With Gurry, he said, “brighter days are ahead.” William New may be reached at wnew at ip-watch.ch. _____ Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 415 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 941 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 939 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Intellectual Property Watch.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45568 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 26 04:13:53 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:13:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [Igcharter] getting underway References: Message-ID: <48DC99C0.82EBDE25@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, Thank you. BTW, just received and reported two more attempted phishing fraudulent spam Email from Gmail/google accounts. so you'll pardon me for my less than jubilant reception of the questionably glowing opinion of yours of Google... McTim wrote: > Ian, > > As much as some disbelieve it, Google really IS your pal in this kind > of situation :-) > > > This is Google's cache of > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html. It is a > snapshot of the page as it appeared on 24 Aug 2008 02:39:02 GMT. The > current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more > > Text-only version > These search terms are highlighted: igccharter > > Approved Charter > > 14 October 2006 > > > > § > IGCcharter > > 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) topromote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making. > > Vision > > The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development > of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of > internationally agreed human rights, social equity and > interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be > inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions > to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to > ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity > and freedom for all. > > Mission > > The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a > forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of > civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The > caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil > society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet > governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of > advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society > (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes. > > Objectives and Tasks > > The objectives and tasks of the IGC are to: > > Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on > significant developments impacting on Internet governance > policies. > > Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever > possible, face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to > Internet governance policies from a civil society perspective. > > Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create > informal relationships with various CS groups and individuals > with a direct interest in Internet governance policies, including > those involved in human rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, > international trade and global electronic commerce, access to > knowledge, and security. > > Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a > stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices. > > Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies > with similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at > various forums involved with Internet governance policies. > > For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, > develop common positions on issues relating to Internet > governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing > and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and > individuals for such positions. > > Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of > Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a > manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC. > > Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of > agreed projects and policies towards better Internet governance. > > 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. > > Organizational Roles > > The IGC will have two coordinators, and an appeals team. Each of these > is discussed separately. > > - Any member of the caucus can be nominated or self-nominate for > participation in any of the defined organizational roles. > > - While there are no defined term limits, it is recommended that those > taking organizational roles absent themselves for at least one year > from any organizational role after serving in that role for one, or at > most two, terms. > > Coordinators > > The IGC will select two (2) coordinators, each for a two (2) year > term. One coordinator will be elected in the even years, (e.g. 2006, > 2008) and one will be elected in the odd years (e.g., 2007, 2009). > > Duties of Coordinators > > The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to > facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to > reach consensus whenever possible. > > In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two > coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject > to an appeal as described below. > > The coordinators are also responsible for defining and assigning any > other tasks that need to be carried out in support of the caucus such > as list management, web site management or support of other tools. > These decisions will require the advice of the membership and can be > appealed to the appeals team. > > Selection of Coordinators > > The selection will be done by on-line voting using the voting process > according to the following formula: > > election of the coordinator will be held, whenever possible by > midsummer (the summer solstice). If events prevent an election by > midsummer, it will be held as soon after midsummer as possible. > > the coordinator(s) who are not up for election or not standing > for election will be responsible for running the election, > subject to appeal by the appeal team. > > Note: as a boot strap procedure for 2006, the interim coordinator will > serve until the end of the first election period, during which two > coordinators will be selected - one for one (1) year and one for two > (2) years. > > Recall of coordinators > > In response to an appeal, as described in the appeals section, the > appeals team can decide to hold a recall vote for a coordinator. In > order to cause the recall vote, there needs to be full consensus among > the appeal team members. > > The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority of voters to succeed. > > Replacement of a coordinator. > > If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, > the role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be > refilled for the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during > the year in which the role was to be vacated. In this case the > coordinator position will be for the balance of the replacement terms > plus a two (2) year regular term. > > For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role > during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a > replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If > on the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then > the replacement would complete the original term and serve the > 2008-2010 term. > > Appeals team > > An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals > board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating > committee as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html. > > Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team. > > Duties of the appeals team. > > Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the > main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the > coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will > review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from > the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and > discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. > > Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the > appeal team, i.e., three (3) or ore votes, except in the case of > coordinator recall which requires full consensus. > > The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision > reviewed. > > Working methods > > The IGC will use its mailing list - governance at lists.cpsr.org, as > the priority working space. > > Work shall also be done with the website : www.igcaucus.org > > The caucus shall have face to face or online virtual meetings > when possible > > Any such meetings will be announced in GMT/UTC time with > reference to one of the online tools for time translation > (e.g. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock ) > > IGC members may also hold such meetings on the site of other > events. > > Meetings will be chaired by the IGC coordinators or delegated > substitutes > > Mailing lists and other communication methods will be archived. > > Mailing lists will be run according to netiquette guidelines. One > guideline reference for IGC netiquette is RFC1855. One useful > guideline for all list participants is: > > Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You > should not send heated message("flames") even if you are provoked. On > the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's > prudent not to respond to flames.. > > Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > > No personal insults > > No spam > Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in > suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the > following process: > The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of > the problem > > If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the > subscriber publicly on the list of impending suspension from > the list. Suspension will include only posting rights. > > If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will > be suspended for one (1) month. > > Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any > further problem will result in another public warning. > > If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a > second public warning, the coordinators will be permitted to > either suspend the posting rights for three (3) months or to > remove the subscriber from the list. > > Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to > remove someone from the list will call for an automatic > appeal by the appeals team. > 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. > > Decisions > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. > When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be > jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the > purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming > majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any > dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. > Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been > made to accommodate minority points of view. > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the > consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty > eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of > the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the > appeals team. > > Statements and representation at meetings > > Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be > discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision > procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be > occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and > will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that require > a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still required that > the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as > soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary: > > The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the > caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that > cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. > > In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate > with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should > reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than > just that of those members who are physically present at the > meeting. > > If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in > face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another > participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, > be made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. > > Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared > and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as > appropriate. > > Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic > principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in > particular. Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, > the assumed general thinking of the caucus, based on past > discussions and documents, and should not contradict the > positions taken by the caucus in the past. > > Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, > preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, > then as soon after their presentation as possible. > > Ad hoc sub-groups > > It may, from time to time, be useful to create specific groups for the > exploration of specific issues, as for example: > > interest groups: in conjunction with or in preparation for IGF > thematic sessions > > editing groups: to prepare draft statements or recommendations to > be reviewed by the IGC as a whole > > coordination groups: to coordinate various issues or activities > requiring such coordinated efforts. > > These groups would, for the most part, be spontaneously self formed in > response to a perceived need and be disband as the need was satisfied. > In general these would be informal and would make recommendations to > the caucus as a whole. > > The rationale for the sub-groups is to allow IGC members with > particular interests and expertise to collaborate and add depth to the > IGC's interventions. While the formation of sub-groups is possible, > they should not become bureaucratic entities in or of themselves and > should be disbanded when they have served their purpose or if they are > resulting in inefficient or exclusionary practice. > > Voting Process > > Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months > before the election will be given a voter account. > > As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that > they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described > elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information > (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to > vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a > personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the > self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with > the results of the election. > > Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the > appeals process. > > All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, > with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be > made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will > be stated, and are subject to appeal. > > Amendments to 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. > > Acceptance of the Charter > > After discussion and editing, the charter will be presented for a > vote. All individuals subscribed to the IGC mail list will be given > voter accounts. In order to qualify to vote on the charter, the > prospective voter will first need to affirm that they qualify as a > member of the group as described elsewhere in the charter. A list of > those who self-affirm membership, but not their votes, will be > published after the vote. > > Once a voter has self-affirmed membership, they will be qualified to > vote for or against the Charter. In order to become the effective > working Charter of the IGC, a total of fifty (50) votes must be > received with no fewer than two-thirds (2/3) of members favoring the > Charter. > > Any options that may remain in the draft charter after thirty (30) > days, will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance process. > In the case that there are options, the vote will be organized to > first ask for acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter > with options left unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote > on the options. For each case where there are options, the option that > receives the most votes will be selected. > > ☸ > > This charter was approved in a two (2 ) week vote ending on 2 October > 2006. Sixty-seven (67) voters participated in the vote, giving the > charter a 95% approval. Details on the vote can be found at: > http://www.igcaucus.org/charter-vote-061002.html > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > Folks sorry for the short delay here – and welcome on > board! > > My intention as regards a way of doing this review was to > break the charter into a number of quite large chunks, each > with its own email heading and post them. We could then > consider any changes suggested within each section and > discuss. That might be a good way to keep control over > suggested changes. > > However I need a copy of the charter to get this started, > and the igcaucus website appears to have been down for the > last 48 hours or so. Once it is up again (I've advised Avri) > we should be getting underway. > > Tjhank you all for volunteering to help here. > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Igcharter mailing list > Igcharter at ipeverywhere.com > > ttp://ipeverywhere.com/mailman/listinfo/igcharter_ipeverywhere.com > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Igcharter mailing list > Igcharter at ipeverywhere.com > http://ipeverywhere.com/mailman/listinfo/igcharter_ipeverywhere.com > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 26 04:58:52 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:58:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] Positive Rights News From Europe Message-ID: <48DCA44C.7927F842@ix.netcom.com> All, See: In good news from Europe on the rights front. First, at the EU level, http://www.ispreview.co.uk/ Mark.J brings word that the European Parliament has http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkkkuEyVkATqxNIAOW.html canned a number of controversial amendments to its updated Telecoms Package, which could have resulted in ISPs being forced to disconnect customers for involvement in illegal file-sharing of copyrighted material. Next, SplatMan_DK writes from Denmark on a recent ruling by the Danish High Court that means that Danes are http://suse.groenbaek.net/openlife/2008/09/20/danes-do-not-have-to-prove-that-they-are-not-copyright-violators/ still innocent until proven guilty in copyright cases, even if their IP address has been confirmed as the origin of P2P traffic involving copyrighted music. Finally, from Sweden, an update on the draconian so-called Lex Orwell, which would have effectively resulted in the routine wiretapping of the entire nation. mailto:wigan.pier at bugmenot.com Eric Blair sends a link on an agreement reached between the Swedish parliament and the sitting government on a http://radsoft.net/news/20080925,00.shtml new form for the controversial signals intelligence law. Supposedly, the sting has been taken out of the law: only the department of defense and the cabinet may request data, and they'll have to get court approval for it. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 27 09:32:53 2008 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:32:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Root zone signing proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI, doc attached -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: VeriSign Root Zone Signing Proposal 09 22 08.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 193288 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 26 16:58:38 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:58:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] Root zone signing proposal References: Message-ID: <48DD4CFE.ED48FD50@ix.netcom.com> McTim and all, Old news, but thanks anyway! >:) McTim wrote: > FYI, doc attached > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > mctim.blogspot.com > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: VeriSign Root Zone Signing Proposal 09 22 08.pdf > VeriSign Root Zone Signing Proposal 09 22 08.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) > Encoding: base64 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 27 03:54:18 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:54:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] US Senate Passes PRO-IP Act Message-ID: <48DDE6AA.45F10994@ix.netcom.com> All, "The Senate has http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080926-ip-bill-passes-senate-no-civil-enforcement-power-for-doj.html passed the PRO-IP Act. While they http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/25/0311207&tid=266 stripped out the provision to have the DoJ act as copyright cops, it still contains increased penalties for infringement, civil forfeiture provisions, and creates an 'IP czar' to coordinate enforcement. Even though the civil forfeiture provisions are ostensibly intended for use against commercial piracy outfits, history indicates that they will probably get used against individuals at some point. Worse, because they left out the only part of the bill that Bush threatened to veto, it is expected to pass. It is going http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10052271-38.html back to the House where they're expected to pass it on Saturday, after which the President will probably sign it. So, if you want to https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml contact your representative, hurry." An anonymous reader notes that DefectiveByDesign.Org is http://www.defectivebydesign.org/stop-revised-riaa-ip-enforcement-bill-s3325 mobilizing to fight this legislation. The Senate vote was unanimous. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 28 15:47:00 2008 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:47:00 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call for volunteers Message-ID: Folks, you may or may not have noticed that the IGC website has been unavailable for several days now, which only brings to a head something I have been discussing with Avri off list recently - Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host the site, and to maintain it - or to host it with a simple content management system where co-ordinators without html skills can do the maintenance? It would have to be someone with strong associations with the caucus and with civil society. I'd be very happy to help with a simple redesign to make it more readable and improve the presentation. Please let me know off list if you are able to take this on. It would make a great difference if we can get good arrangements in place here. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dcogburn at syr.edu Sun Sep 28 16:14:33 2008 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:14:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call for volunteers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ian, I'd be happy to help. We use DNN CMS on all our sites. See our main site below. Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.edu Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2008, at 3:49 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Folks, you may or may not have noticed that the IGC website has been > unavailable for several days now, which only brings to a head > something I have been discussing with Avri off list recently – > > > > Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host the > site, and to maintain it – or to host it with a simple content manag > ement system where co-ordinators without html skills can do the main > tenance? > > > > It would have to be someone with strong associations with the caucus > and with civil society. I’d be very happy to help with a simple rede > sign to make it more readable and improve the presentation. > > > > Please let me know off list if you are able to take this on. It > would make a great difference if we can get good arrangements in > place here. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Sep 29 00:58:53 2008 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:58:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call for volunteers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080929045340.M15547@Malcolm.id.au> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:47:00 +1000, Ian Peter wrote > Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host the > site, and to maintain it - or to host it with a simple content > management system where co-ordinators without html skills can do the > maintenance? > > It would have to be someone with strong associations with the caucus > and with civil society. I'd be very happy to help with a simple > redesign to make it more readable and improve the presentation. I know Derrick has already offered but alternatively igf-online.net is a dedicated server that I put together for the now-dormant Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition and is specifically designed to host stuff like this. It already hosts a blog, wiki, shared calendar, RSS aggregator and mailing lists. There is also a Drupal CMS installed but not used. The IGC would be welcome to use that. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 28 02:57:12 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:57:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call References: <20080929045340.M15547@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <48DF2AC8.EBC6D1C4@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy and all, Is this platform a Google based platform? Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:47:00 +1000, Ian Peter wrote > > Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host the > > site, and to maintain it - or to host it with a simple content > > management system where co-ordinators without html skills can do the > > maintenance? > > > > It would have to be someone with strong associations with the caucus > > and with civil society. I'd be very happy to help with a simple > > redesign to make it more readable and improve the presentation. > > I know Derrick has already offered but alternatively igf-online.net is a dedicated server that I put > together for the now-dormant Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition and is specifically designed to > host stuff like this. It already hosts a blog, wiki, shared calendar, RSS aggregator and mailing lists. > There is also a Drupal CMS installed but not used. The IGC would be welcome to use that. > > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 28 19:48:01 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:48:01 -0700 Subject: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call References: <20080929045340.M15547@Malcolm.id.au> <48DF2AC8.EBC6D1C4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <48E017B1.DA0C0730@ix.netcom.com> Jeremy and all, I did as you ask, but I must complain that you insist on such being done. Please do not send me another of these sorts of responses again, lest more specific and necessary legal action be considered accordingly. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >Jeremy and all, > > > Is this platform a Google based platform? > > >Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:47:00 +1000, Ian Peter wrote > >> > Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host the > >> > site, and to maintain it - or to host it with a simple content > >> > management system where co-ordinators without html skills can do the > >> > maintenance? > >> > > >> > It would have to be someone with strong associations with the caucus > >> > and with civil society. I'd be very happy to help with a simple > >> > redesign to make it more readable and improve the presentation. > >> > >> I know Derrick has already offered but alternatively igf-online.net is a dedicated server that I put > >> together for the now-dormant Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition and is specifically designed to > >> host stuff like this. It already hosts a blog, wiki, shared calendar, RSS aggregator and mailing lists. > >> There is also a Drupal CMS installed but not used. The IGC would be welcome to use that. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > >Regards, > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >=============================================================== > >Updated 1/26/04 > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > This is an automatic response. Your email has been identified as > possible spam, and my email filter has deleted it before I have had the > opportunity to read it. This is necessary because my quotient of spam > to real mail is currently running at over 43%. If your email is not spam, > please resend it with the password "tardis" somewhere in the subject > line, so that my spam filter will be bypassed and you can be added to my > whitelist automatically. Thank you. > > -- > 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 $3}' Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ginger at paque.net Tue Sep 30 06:46:44 2008 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:16:44 -0430 Subject: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call In-Reply-To: <48E017B1.DA0C0730@ix.netcom.com> References: <20080929045340.M15547@Malcolm.id.au> <48DF2AC8.EBC6D1C4@ix.netcom.com> <48E017B1.DA0C0730@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <008501c922e9$d6af8040$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP> Jeffrey, I do not understand the motive for what seems (to my untrained, non-legal eye) to be an implied threat here. Jeremy's email response seems both informative and helpful. Many times after reading your posts, I do an Internet search on the INEGroup, to try to put your opinion in perspective as spokesperson for the INE Group. However, I have never been able to find anything except references to your signature as spokesperson and questions similar to mine. Could you please provide a link to the group? Thank you. -----Mensaje original----- De: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Enviado el: Domingo, 28 de Septiembre de 2008 07:18 p.m. Para: Jeremy Malcolm; Governance/IGC Asunto: tardis Re: [governance] IGC website hosting and maintenenance - call Jeremy and all, I did as you ask, but I must complain that you insist on such being done. Please do not send me another of these sorts of responses again, lest more specific and necessary legal action be considered accordingly. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >Jeremy and all, > > > Is this platform a Google based platform? > > >Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:47:00 +1000, Ian Peter wrote > >> > Would someone or some organisation like to volunteer to host the > >> > site, and to maintain it - or to host it with a simple content > >> > management system where co-ordinators without html skills can do the > >> > maintenance? > >> > > >> > It would have to be someone with strong associations with the caucus > >> > and with civil society. I'd be very happy to help with a simple > >> > redesign to make it more readable and improve the presentation. > >> > >> I know Derrick has already offered but alternatively igf-online.net is a dedicated server that I put > >> together for the now-dormant Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition and is specifically designed to > >> host stuff like this. It already hosts a blog, wiki, shared calendar, RSS aggregator and mailing lists. > >> There is also a Drupal CMS installed but not used. The IGC would be welcome to use that. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > >Regards, > > >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) > >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > > Abraham Lincoln > > >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >=============================================================== > >Updated 1/26/04 > >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > >My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > This is an automatic response. Your email has been identified as > possible spam, and my email filter has deleted it before I have had the > opportunity to read it. This is necessary because my quotient of spam > to real mail is currently running at over 43%. If your email is not spam, > please resend it with the password "tardis" somewhere in the subject > line, so that my spam filter will be bypassed and you can be added to my > whitelist automatically. Thank you. > > -- > 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}' Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance