From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 1 00:48:11 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:18:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> Robin and Milton, IT for Change will sign on the text put up by Milton, and I as a member of IGC also support that IGC signs it. I must however mention a couple of issues, on behalf of my organization, which do not impact the above endorsement. I apologize for this longish text, but we have reservations about the ICANN's governance model and we need to mention them while supporting an endorsement of a relatively minor structural change in it. It is also relevant to mention these issues in some detail because of the surprise, and perhaps exasperation (I dont say that it is not justified), shown by some members on this list as to why do some members active in IGC/ IGF not engage sufficiently with ICANN where some 'real work' may be getting done. This is how we see this space, and decide on our engagements, thinly resourced that we are. Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, though often important, administrative tasks in managing some critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant political implications. In case its is the former, we are not really that interested in its work. Perhaps that may appear a little rude. Better to say we do not have the time vis a vis our primary inclinations as an organization. We primarily do development work, with a keen understanding of the political nature of development. In this context, we consider it our task to specifically represent the the interests of the currently disadvantaged and marginalized sections.Technical governance is not our core mandate; only to the extent it has strong political implications vis a vis 'development constituencies' do we get involved. However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC on the FoE issue. Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to overall do much greater damage than good to the global public interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or any other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN. On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but US government is not). We also agree that a simple inter-governmental system is not enough to constitute such an 'legitimate entity' as representing global public interest, especially in the new global circumstances created by the Internet. New, and perhaps innovative, ways to construct the needed legitimacies must therefore be tried out. Such efforts should however remain rooted in key percepts of what is public interest, and what can constitute its legitimate representation. The separation between private interest and public interest needs to be maintained, indeed honored. There should be sufficient proactive effort towards disproportionately higher representation of those currently marginalized, and not the opposite as these new models of governance do, in the name of some kind of neat efficiency and the like. All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly received with strong political opposition. Warding off illegitimate statist interests has been a chief, at one stage even the central, struggle in the IG arena. Many actors who have shown exemplary dedication as well as foresight in fighting these interests, with a good degree of success, must forever remain our heroes. However, some of the same actors, and/or their second generation flag-bearers, are much less cognizant of another struggle in the IG arena which is at least as important. The struggle to make sure that the Internet does not become an instrument of a new global order that it even further dominated by the already powerful; where political power is allocated on the basis on the economic power one already posses, instead of moderating it, and where new governance systems provide political cover and legitimacy to economic exploitation. It is no longer acceptable for any civil society constituency claiming any degree of global legitimacy to not represent both these struggles equally. We not only find the global governance models implied in the ICANN system quite ominous for the future of global governance, we would also like the global civil society engaged with its forums to better represent the political interests of the currently excluded/ marginalized sections. However, we do recognize that the battle has to be fought on many fronts, and many in the NCUC have done great work in developing more spaces for public interest constituencies, and taking up some important public interest issues. We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of council members is a much better process. It is better because it has a higher chance of representing global public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider support. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and > participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish > to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users > Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we > believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded > provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society > representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization. > > > > We specifically support the proposal because: > > * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for > input by relevant ICANN participants; > > * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but > avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent > constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures > and representatives; > > * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require > individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that > may not correspond to their interests and needs; > > * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based > Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, > instead offering them a chance to build consensus > > > > We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to > give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster > global, geographically diverse representation. > > > > We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and > urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. > > > > Signed, > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > > > Etc. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 1 00:56:12 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:26:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49D2F3EC.7090703@itforchange.net> Milton, Is it possible to change "While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization." to "While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization, *within its existing overall structure*." Thanks. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and > participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish > to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial > Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users > Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we > believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded > provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society > representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization. > > > > We specifically support the proposal because: > > * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for > input by relevant ICANN participants; > > * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but > avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent > constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures > and representatives; > > * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require > individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that > may not correspond to their interests and needs; > > * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based > Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, > instead offering them a chance to build consensus > > > > We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to > give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster > global, geographically diverse representation. > > > > We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and > urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. > > > > Signed, > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > > > Etc. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Apr 1 04:55:04 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:55:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> Dear Parminder I thank you warmly for having expressed the very concerns (and even the fear) of most of the grass-root CS organisations that are implied in the WSIS follow-up process. Personnally and on behalf of CSDPTT I am pleased to share with you the prevalence of public interest and the permanent worry about real development : these should be the major drivers in all our activities and commitments, and -in this case- in Internet governance issues which will have an important -either positive or negative- impact in developing countries. Friendy yours Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: Robin and Milton, IT for Change will sign on the text put up by Milton, and I as a member of IGC also support that IGC signs it. I must however mention a couple of issues, on behalf of my organization, which do not impact the above endorsement. I apologize for this longish text, but we have reservations about the ICANN's governance model and we need to mention them while supporting an endorsement of a relatively minor structural change in it. It is also relevant to mention these issues in some detail because of the surprise, and perhaps exasperation (I dont say that it is not justified), shown by some members on this list as to why do some members active in IGC/ IGF not engage sufficiently with ICANN where some 'real work' may be getting done. This is how we see this space, and decide on our engagements, thinly resourced that we are. Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, though often important, administrative tasks in managing some critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant political implications. In case its is the former, we are not really that interested in its work. Perhaps that may appear a little rude. Better to say we do not have the time vis a vis our primary inclinations as an organization. We primarily do development work, with a keen understanding of the political nature of development. In this context, we consider it our task to specifically represent the the interests of the currently disadvantaged and marginalized sections.Technical governance is not our core mandate; only to the extent it has strong political implications vis a vis 'development constituencies' do we get involved. However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC on the FoE issue. Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to overall do much greater damage than good to the global public interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or any other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN. On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but US government is not). We also agree that a simple inter-governmental system is not enough to constitute such an 'legitimate entity' as representing global public interest, especially in the new global circumstances created by the Internet. New, and perhaps innovative, ways to construct the needed legitimacies must therefore be tried out. Such efforts should however remain rooted in key percepts of what is public interest, and what can constitute its legitimate representation. The separation between private interest and public interest needs to be maintained, indeed honored. There should be sufficient proactive effort towards disproportionately higher representation of those currently marginalized, and not the opposite as these new models of governance do, in the name of some kind of neat efficiency and the like. All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly received with strong political opposition. Warding off illegitimate statist interests has been a chief, at one stage even the central, struggle in the IG arena. Many actors who have shown exemplary dedication as well as foresight in fighting these interests, with a good degree of success, must forever remain our heroes. However, some of the same actors, and/or their second generation flag-bearers, are much less cognizant of another struggle in the IG arena which is at least as important. The struggle to make sure that the Internet does not become an instrument of a new global order that it even further dominated by the already powerful; where political power is allocated on the basis on the economic power one already posses, instead of moderating it, and where new governance systems provide political cover and legitimacy to economic exploitation. It is no longer acceptable for any civil society constituency claiming any degree of global legitimacy to not represent both these struggles equally. We not only find the global governance models implied in the ICANN system quite ominous for the future of global governance, we would also like the global civil society engaged with its forums to better represent the political interests of the currently excluded/ marginalized sections. However, we do recognize that the battle has to be fought on many fronts, and many in the NCUC have done great work in developing more spaces for public interest constituencies, and taking up some important public interest issues. We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of council members is a much better process. It is better because it has a higher chance of representing global public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider support. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization. We specifically support the proposal because: * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants; * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs; * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation. We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. Signed, -- -- Etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From divina.meigs at orange.fr Wed Apr 1 15:05:08 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:05:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Privacy, Security, Trust : Submission Deadline Extended -- Congress 2009 - E-Government Track In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleages Please note the extension to the deadline for the World Congress on Privacy, Security, Trust and Management ** The paper submission deadline has been extended to April 15th, 2009. ** Call For Papers: E-Government Theme 2009 World Congress on Privacy, Security, Trust and the Management of e-Business (Congress 2009) http://www.unb.ca/pstnet/congress2009/ August 25 ­ 27, 2009, Saint John,New Brunswick, Canada We are pleased to announce that the annual World Congress on the Management of e-Business conference organized by McMaster University¹s eBusiness Research Centre (MeRC) and the annual Privacy, Security and Trust conference (PST) organized by the University of New Brunswick (UNB) in cooperation with the National Research Council of Canada Institute for Information Technology (NRC-IIT) are coming together in 2009. This joint event will operate as the 2009 World Congress on Privacy, Security, Trust and the Management of e-Business and the conference will take place August 25 ­ 27, 2009, in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. E-Government Theme The roles of E-Government include, among its various definitions, the application of information and communication technologies (ICT) to the operation of government, including, but not limited to, its civil, political, and administrative aspects. Priority topics for this theme for 2009 are the following: Civic intelligence Internet Governance Disability issues Support for independent living and governance for an aging population Open standards for e-Government Radio, television, and telecommunications New technologies for inclusion in governance Human-computer interaction issues Assistive technologies Privacy Implementations Technologies to support and analyse policy-making E-Government technology and research roadmaps Next-generation technologies to support public services The themes for this track are not limited to the above. We welcome high-quality papers on other topics related to E-Government. Paper Submission High-quality papers not under review or previously accepted or published elsewhere are solicited. There will be Best Paper and Best Student Paper awards. Paper submissions should be in the IEEE format, with the first page bearing authors¹ affiliations, names and contact details. Accepted papers will be published in joint proceedings by IEEE in hard copy and online. Selected papers will be published in a special issue of the International Journal of Electronic Business (IJEB). E-Government Theme Chair William McIver, Jr., National Research Council Canada, Bill.McIver at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca E-Government Theme Program Committee Ezendu Ariwa, London Metropolitan University, UK Athman Bouguettaya, CSIRO, Australia Nadia Caidi, University of Toronto, Canada Divina Frau-Meigs, University of Paris 3-Sorbonne, France Andrew Gaudes, University of New Brunswick, Canada Michael Gurstein, CommunityInformatics.net, Canada Hans Klein, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Zaki Malik, Virginia Tech, USA Alex Marland, Memorial University, Canada Aldo de Moor, CommunitySense, The Netherlands Haidar Moukdad, Dalhousie University, Canada Theresa A. Pardo, Center for Technology in Government / University at Albany, USA Mamadou Tadiou Koné, Laval University , Canada Elaine Toms, Dalhousie University, Canada Qi Yu, Rochester Institute of Technology, USA Important Dates April 15, 2009 Research Paper Submission Deadline *** New Deadline *** June 5, 2009 Research Paper Notification of Acceptance June 15, 2009 Practitioner Paper Submission Deadline July 3, 2009 Final Research Manuscript Due General Co-Chairs Dr. Khaled Hassanein, McMaster eBusiness Research Centre, Canada Dr. Mark McIntyre, DRDC Atlantic/RDDC Atlantique, Canada Honorary Conference Chair Ali Ghorbani, University of New Brunswick, Canada http://www.unb.ca/pstnet/congress2009 -- William McIver, Jr, PhD (Bill) Senior Research Officer, National Research Council Canada Adjunct Professor, University of New Brunswick Bill.McIver at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca / +1 (506) 444-0387 _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary ------ Fin du message transféré ------ Fin du message transféré ------ Fin du message transféré ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 2 10:53:49 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:23:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> Message-ID: <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> Dear Jean-Louis We are glad for your and CSPDTT's support. Thank you very much. Parminder Dear All There is of course a very strong 'development constituency' that is of this view, as presented d below. Almost all people and organizations working in the development area that we know and work with will have a position close to this. However, much effort is made to blind-side this view, behave as if it is not there, or is only held by a small fringe. If a more open forum like IGF does show some promise to give space to these views, it is constantly run down. My problems with organized business interests heavy governance structures in ICANN can relatively easily be understood in the background of the current clamour, nay belatedly the accepted collective wisdom, for new global regulatory structures for global finance. What about the following governance structure for regulating global finance, which I build following the ICANN/ GNSO model. Incidentally, this model is the current improved one which we are supposed to be happy about. A global policy council with 25 % votes for the banks, 25% for other financial institutions, 25% for large commercial account holders and 25 % for saving account holders, nothing to anyone with no bank account - which is still the large majority of the world's disadvantaged people (how banking works is supposed to be none of their business) Why dont we - of the world of innovative governance models in the information society - propose the above to the G-20 meeting on the current economic crisis, and then celebrate if this proposal is accepted as a great multistakeholder governance innovation, that frees the world from statist controls and provides brave new directions. (Disclaimer: I greatly respect all progressive people and organizations wherever, putting in their effort in whichever way they think best. The above caricature of ICANN like processes is just to make the point of its inherent dangers, even absurdity, to the extent they seek to deal with any really crucial global political issue at all.) Parminder jlfullsack wrote: > Dear Parminder > > I thank you warmly for having expressed the very concerns (and even > the fear) of most of the grass-root CS organisations that are implied > in the WSIS follow-up process. > > Personnally and on behalf of CSDPTT I am pleased to share with you the > prevalence of public interest and the permanent worry about real > development : these should be the major drivers in all our activities > and commitments, and -in this case- in Internet governance issues > which will have an important -either positive or negative- impact in > developing countries. > > Friendy yours > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Parminder > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC > statement re: > > Robin and Milton, > > IT for Change will sign on the text put up by Milton, and I as a > member of IGC also support that IGC signs it. > > I must however mention a couple of issues, on behalf of my > organization, which do not impact the above endorsement. I > apologize for this longish text, but we have reservations about > the ICANN's governance model and we need to mention them while > supporting an endorsement of a relatively minor structural change > in it. It is also relevant to mention these issues in some detail > because of the surprise, and perhaps exasperation (I dont say that > it is not justified), shown by some members on this list as to why > do some members active in IGC/ IGF not engage sufficiently with > ICANN where some 'real work' may be getting done. > > This is how we see this space, and decide on our engagements, > thinly resourced that we are. > > Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, > though often important, administrative tasks in managing some > critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much > political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant > political implications. In case its is the former, we are not > really that interested in its work. Perhaps that may appear a > little rude. Better to say we do not have the time vis a vis our > primary inclinations as an organization. We primarily do > development work, with a keen understanding of the political > nature of development. In this context, we consider it our task to > specifically represent the the interests of the currently > disadvantaged and marginalized sections.Technical governance is > not our core mandate; only to the extent it has strong political > implications vis a vis 'development constituencies' do we get > involved. > > However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political > implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive > logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and > supply side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between > other commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree > to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation > that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not > think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign > of NCUC on the FoE issue. > > Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems > disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may > read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central > governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong > models of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to > overall do much greater damage than good to the global public > interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political > sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural > adjustments are aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there > is a certain complicity in the ICANN arena in this regard - > including of some of the involved civil society actors - we must > strongly disassociate ourselves from supporting any such > implications of the present, or any other, proposal for structural > changes in the ICANN. > > On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder > models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are > politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, > but US government is not). We also agree that a simple > inter-governmental system is not enough to constitute such an > 'legitimate entity' as representing global public interest, > especially in the new global circumstances created by the > Internet. New, and perhaps innovative, ways to construct the > needed legitimacies must therefore be tried out. Such efforts > should however remain rooted in key percepts of what is public > interest, and what can constitute its legitimate representation. > The separation between private interest and public interest needs > to be maintained, indeed honored. There should be sufficient > proactive effort towards disproportionately higher representation > of those currently marginalized, and not the opposite as these new > models of governance do, in the name of some kind of neat > efficiency and the like. All such governance innovations - > out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - that look like they are > especially pushing forward marginalized interests attract our > strong interest. All 'innovations' that further entrench dominant > interests -whether economic, political, geo-political, class - > are correspondingly received with strong political opposition. > > Warding off illegitimate statist interests has been a chief, at > one stage even the central, struggle in the IG arena. Many actors > who have shown exemplary dedication as well as foresight in > fighting these interests, with a good degree of success, must > forever remain our heroes. However, some of the same actors, > and/or their second generation flag-bearers, are much less > cognizant of another struggle in the IG arena which is at least as > important. The struggle to make sure that the Internet does not > become an instrument of a new global order that it even further > dominated by the already powerful; where political power is > allocated on the basis on the economic power one already posses, > instead of moderating it, and where new governance systems provide > political cover and legitimacy to economic exploitation. It is no > longer acceptable for any civil society constituency claiming any > degree of global legitimacy to not represent both these struggles > equally. We not only find the global governance models implied in > the ICANN system quite ominous for the future of global > governance, we would also like the global civil society engaged > with its forums to better represent the political interests of the > currently excluded/ marginalized sections. > > However, we do recognize that the battle has to be fought on many > fronts, and many in the NCUC have done great work in developing > more spaces for public interest constituencies, and taking up some > important public interest issues. > > We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC > adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and > especially agree that its direct instead of constituency based > election of council members is a much better process. It is > better because it has a higher chance of representing global > public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider > support. > > Parminder > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and >> participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We >> wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial >> Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial >> Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor >> improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the >> charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis >> for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names >> Supporting Organization. >> >> We specifically support the proposal because: >> >> * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for >> input by relevant ICANN participants; >> >> * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, >> but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into >> independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, >> administrative structures and representatives; >> >> * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not >> require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined >> categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs; >> >> * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in >> consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes >> to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus >> >> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed >> to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not >> foster global, geographically diverse representation. >> >> We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative >> and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. >> >> Signed, >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Etc. >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 2 11:51:30 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:51:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D2F3EC.7090703@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F3EC.7090703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> No problem Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:56 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: ICANN NCSG Milton, Is it possible to change "While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization." to "While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization, within its existing overall structure." Thanks. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization. We specifically support the proposal because: * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants; * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs; * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation. We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. Signed, -- -- Etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 2 12:22:06 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:22:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Parminder: Thanks very much for this long-overdue but welcome and well-considered explanation. We have indeed felt exasperated at times by the lack of engagement by IGC/IGF civil society. It has always seemed to me that ICANN repeatedly raises political issues and struggles that, in the IGF context, attract a great deal of activity but have very little impact relative to the ICANN venue. And while it wasn't hard to surmise that some of the logic you developed below underlay the hesitation to get involved, it is better to have an open dialogue about this. A few specific responses and questions below: Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, though often important, administrative tasks in managing some critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant political implications. It is the latter, obviously. However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC on the FoE issue. For those who are weak on the acronyms, KTCN = keep the core neutral, FoE = freedom of expression. I do not see how the KTCN campaign had anything to do with whether one was a domain registrant or not, but perhaps I miss your point. Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to overall do much greater damage than good to the global public interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or any other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN. Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global institution(s) are accountable to a broad segment of Internet society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states. On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but US government is not). Who is? Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, China, Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use IGOs (and ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two options are state-directed but the third relies more on great power deals than established institutional frameworks. I'll take 1). All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly received with strong political opposition. Understand this well. If you want to know why IGP verges on the status of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC circles it's because of this. But I suspect our concept of what kind of policies best overcome marginalization may differ. Setting that aside, I see based on your final comments below that you at least partly realize why the NCSG charter should be supported in this case. To spell it out more clearly, the reason NCSG is being targeted by ICANN staff as something to be fragmented and manipulated is precisely because NCUC has been completely independent of staff control and dominance (unlike ALAC and the RALOs) and because the policies it has advocated have seemed "oppositional" and challenging to some of those "dominant interests." We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of council members is a much better process. It is better because it has a higher chance of representing global public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider support. Thanks! When it comes to the bottom line, I am happy to see that you "get 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 2 13:00:48 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:00:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] You won't believe this. Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/4141451.html Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 2 13:06:05 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:06:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically representative group signing on but we could also use more. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org Milton L Mueller wrote: The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization within its existing overall structure. We specifically support the proposal because: * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants; * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs; * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation. We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. Signed, -- -- Etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 2 13:56:46 2009 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:56:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20090402175646.GA23713@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:06:05PM -0400, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically > representative group signing on but we could also use more. Count me in. -- 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Thu Apr 2 14:29:39 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:29:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <20090402175646.GA23713@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Milton I think you already have me but just in case... Count me in Divina Divina Frau-Meigs Professor, media sociology, University Sorbonne nouvelle Director, master's programme "Engineering in e-learning and media education" Board Member, ECREA (European Communication Research and Education Asso Past vice-president, IAMCR (Intl Asso for Media and Communication Research) Www.medias-matrices.net Le 02/04/09 19:56, « Tapani Tarvainen » a écrit : > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:06:05PM -0400, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > wrote: > >> Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically >> representative group signing on but we could also use more. > > Count me in. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dave at isoc-mu.org Thu Apr 2 14:35:41 2009 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:35:41 +0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Count me in please! Best regards Dave _____ From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 02 April 2009 21:06 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Parminder'; jlfullsack Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically representative group signing on but we could also use more. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org Milton L Mueller wrote: The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization within its existing overall structure. We specifically support the proposal because: * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants; * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs; * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation. We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. Signed, -- -- Etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 3 06:10:32 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:10:32 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <20090402175646.GA23713@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I sign it too wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] Gesendet: Do 02.04.2009 19:56 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:06:05PM -0400, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically > representative group signing on but we could also use more. Count me in. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 3 06:17:08 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:17:08 +1100 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <6EB11B2A733F4AFABDA8790FF31F9D53@IAN> And I think we can now call an IGC consensus on this as well. The two co-coordinators will sign for IGC in addition to all the individuals who sign on. Good result! Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 03 April 2009 21:11 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: > > I sign it too > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] > Gesendet: Do 02.04.2009 19:56 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: > > > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:06:05PM -0400, Milton L Mueller > (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > > > Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically > > representative group signing on but we could also use more. > > Count me in. > > -- > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Apr 3 08:37:26 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:37:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] You won't believe this. In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I can't get a connection to the senate commerce committee site, but doesn't this draft bill talk about the IANA contract, not ICANN and JPA? Example Adam >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/4141451.html > >Milton Mueller >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 3 09:28:31 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:28:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] You won't believe this. In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DED7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Adam, First, this is explicitly one of those 'let's get a conversation started' bills, and therefore unlikely to go anywhere in 2009. However, that said, my reading is it is also explicitly looking at both ICANN and IANA issues and relationships/processes in cybersecurity emergencies, and more broadly than that too. Right Milton? Lee ________________________________________ From: Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] You won't believe this. I can't get a connection to the senate commerce committee site, but doesn't this draft bill talk about the IANA contract, not ICANN and JPA? Example Adam >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/4141451.html > >Milton Mueller >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 3 10:50:16 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:50:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49D62228.2000006@rits.org.br> I sign it too, of course. :) --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically representative group signing on but we could also use more. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization within its existing overall structure. > We specifically support the proposal because: > * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants; > * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; > * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs; > * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus > We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation. > We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. > Signed, > -- > -- > Etc. > > -- ------------------------------------------------ Carlos A. Afonso Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits www.rits.org.br www.rets.org.br www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br www.ritsnet.org.br ------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 3 12:58:51 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:58:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] You won't believe this. In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DED7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DED7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10F6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> posted a more detailed look at the bill on an IGP blog. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/3/4142495.html Lee is generally good at interpreting inside the Beltway stuff, so if this is a "let's start talking about it" bill it has certainly succeeded. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] You won't believe this. > > Adam, > > First, this is explicitly one of those 'let's get a > conversation started' bills, and therefore unlikely to go > anywhere in 2009. > > However, that said, my reading is it is also explicitly > looking at both ICANN and IANA issues and > relationships/processes in cybersecurity emergencies, and > more broadly than that too. > > Right Milton? > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] You won't believe this. > > I can't get a connection to the senate commerce committee site, but > doesn't this draft bill talk about the IANA contract, not ICANN and > JPA? > > Example > > > Adam > > > > > > >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/41 41451.html > > > >Milton Mueller > >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > >------------------------------ > >Internet Governance Project: > >http://internetgovernance.org > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Fri Apr 3 15:54:31 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:54:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: Message-ID: <49D66977.8040902@apc.org> Hi Milton Please add APC as a signatory and my name as well. Willie > > Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically representative group > signing on but we could also use more. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.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 iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg Fri Apr 3 17:36:16 2009 From: iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg (iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:36:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D62228.2000006@rits.org.br> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D62228.2000006@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <847683c047409a1cff811421990eec4b@regia.bg> I sign it too. Iliya Bazlyankov, Bulgaria. On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:50:16 -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote: > I sign it too, of course. :) > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically representative > group signing on but we could also use more. >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its support for > version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter > developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be > room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which > the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for > civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > Organization within its existing overall structure. >> We specifically support the proposal because: >> * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input > by relevant ICANN participants; >> * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but > avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent > constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and > representatives; >> * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require > individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may > not correspond to their interests and needs; >> * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based > Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, > instead offering them a chance to build consensus >> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to > give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster > global, geographically diverse representation. >> We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and > urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. >> Signed, >> -- >> -- >> Etc. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Apr 3 19:05:33 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:05:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] You won't believe this. References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DED7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10F6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D84@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> It follows more or less the reeommednation of a lengthy report on cybersecurity and with receommednations for the next president which was done by the CSIS based on interviews with about 100 mainly US experts (including some ICANN guyes like Steve Crocker). But also the report has only indirect connections with the ICANN issues (if you see IANA as a special issue which is not really under control of ICANN). My conclusion from the CSIS report was already in december that we will see a totally new agenda for the internet and the "old isses" will more or less become of secondary importance. Lets wait and see how long it will need that G 7/G 20 will discover that cybersecurity is also a security issue for their national agendas .... Wolfgang ________________________________ De: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Enviado el: vie 03/04/2009 18:58 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Asunto: RE: [governance] You won't believe this. posted a more detailed look at the bill on an IGP blog. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/3/4142495.html Lee is generally good at interpreting inside the Beltway stuff, so if this is a "let's start talking about it" bill it has certainly succeeded. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] You won't believe this. > > Adam, > > First, this is explicitly one of those 'let's get a > conversation started' bills, and therefore unlikely to go > anywhere in 2009. > > However, that said, my reading is it is also explicitly > looking at both ICANN and IANA issues and > relationships/processes in cybersecurity emergencies, and > more broadly than that too. > > Right Milton? > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] You won't believe this. > > I can't get a connection to the senate commerce committee site, but > doesn't this draft bill talk about the IANA contract, not ICANN and > JPA? > > Example > > > Adam > > > > > > >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/41 41451.html > > > >Milton Mueller > >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > >------------------------------ > >Internet Governance Project: > >http://internetgovernance.org > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 3 22:58:57 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 13:58:57 +1100 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <847683c047409a1cff811421990eec4b@regia.bg> Message-ID: <6C09E760EBF1458C9CD492EB47B227B5@IAN> Thanks everyone, this statement has now been sent to meet the April 5 deadline. To the ICANN Board: The Internet Governance Caucus is the 200-member voice of civil society in the Internet Governance Forum. It wishes to express its support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization, within its existing overall structure. We specifically support the proposal because: * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by relevant ICANN participants; * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may not correspond to their interests and needs; * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead offering them a chance to build consensus. We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, geographically diverse representation. We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge you to ratify and accept version 6.0 of the NCSG charter. Ian Peter (Australia) and Virginia Paque (Venezuela, Diplo Foundation), co-coordinators, IGC The above statement was adopted consensually by our members. In addition, the organizations and individuals listed below are members of and participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus and have specifically ask that we list their names as supporters: Baudouin Schombe, Coordonnateur National Reprontic, Coordonnateur Sous Regional ACSIS/Afrique Centrale, Membre Facilitateur GAID Afrique IT for Change, Kerala, India Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa Dr. Hakikur Rahman, Chairman, SchoolNet Foundation, Bangladesh, and Post Doctoral Fellow University of Minho, Portugal Fouad Bajwa, Punjab, Pakistan Tapani Tarvainen, Chairman, Electronic Frontier Finland Divina Frau-Meigs, Professor, Media Sociology, Université Sorbonne nouvelle; Board Member, European Communication Research and Education Association, Paris, France Lisa Horner, The Freedom of Expression Project, UK Jeanette Hofmann, London School of Economics, UK Lee McKnight, Syracuse University, USA David Goldstein, Australia Dave Kisoondoyal, Mauritius, Africa; Public Interest Registry Advisory Council Willie Currie, APC Adam Peake, Tokyo, Japan Meryem Marzouki, Senior Researcher, French National Scientific Research Center (CNRS), Paris, France Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Professor for International Communication Policy and Regulation, Department for Media and Information Sciences of the University of Aarhus, Denmark Carlos Afonso, RITS Brazil Iliya Bazlyankov, Bulgaria. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg [mailto:iliya.bazlyankov at regia.bg] > Sent: 04 April 2009 08:36 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: > > I sign it too. > > Iliya Bazlyankov, Bulgaria. > > On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:50:16 -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > I sign it too, of course. :) > > > > --c.a. > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Last call for sign-on. We have a nice, geographically representative > > group signing on but we could also use more. > >> > >> Milton Mueller > >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > >> ------------------------------ > >> Internet Governance Project: > >> http://internetgovernance.org > >> > >> > >> Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its support for > > version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter > > developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While there may still > be > > room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic principles on > which > > the charter is founded provide the fairest and most effective basis for > > civil society representation in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting > > Organization within its existing overall structure. > >> We specifically support the proposal because: > >> * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input > > by relevant ICANN participants; > >> * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but > > avoids fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent > > constituencies with separate mailing lists, administrative structures > and > > representatives; > >> * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require > > individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that > may > > not correspond to their interests and needs; > >> * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based > > Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, > > instead offering them a chance to build consensus > >> We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to > > give a specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster > > global, geographically diverse representation. > >> We appreciate ICANN's effort to make its GNSO more representative and > > urge you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. > >> Signed, > >> -- > >> -- > >> Etc. > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 05:14:34 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:14:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <6AFD6F61FE71406FAFDF8F502DCF4A1B@PCbureau> <49D4D17D.6010606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <701af9f70904050214m2a5b89d3pa395d5e94267cc14@mail.gmail.com> Parminder, what you have shared is very close to how other IG activists and advocacy groups fell and have been concerned with for quite some time now. I have also observed some people on the MAG committee to have risen from their CS role stepping into the ICANN process and leading towards functioning more towards ICANN's interests and failing out on the objectives of the CS group. As stated earlier somewhere, I have had concerns on how thing shave been moving forward and the same individuals changing their IGF hats to ICANN hats and vice versa. There is definitely a great need to introduce more CS reps in the process that have experience and knowledge of ICANN and then create that tunnel to decentralizing the issue that has been in discussion for over half a decade now. There is a lot to done but somehow no one seems to be paying attention to the issue and you have been the first one to step into open opposition and others need to realize this that they must also be vocal about their concerns. On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Parminder wrote: > Dear Jean-Louis > > We are glad for your and CSPDTT's support. Thank you very much. Parminder > > Dear All > > There is of course a very strong 'development constituency' that is of this > view, as presented d below. Almost all people and organizations working in > the development area that we know and work with will have a position > close to this. However, much effort is made to blind-side this view, behave > as if it is not there, or is only held by a small fringe. If a more open > forum like IGF does show some promise to give space to these views, it is > constantly run down. > > My problems with organized business interests heavy governance structures > in ICANN can relatively easily be understood in the background of the > current clamour, nay belatedly the accepted collective wisdom, for new > global regulatory structures for global finance. What about the following > governance structure for regulating global finance, which I build following > the ICANN/ GNSO model. Incidentally, this model is the current improved one > which we are supposed to be happy about. > > A global policy council with 25 % votes for the banks, 25% for other > financial institutions, 25% for large commercial account holders and 25 % > for saving account holders, nothing to anyone with no bank account - which > is still the large majority of the world's disadvantaged people (how banking > works is supposed to be none of their business) > > Why dont we - of the world of innovative governance models in the > information society - propose the above to the G-20 meeting on the current > economic crisis, and then celebrate if this proposal is accepted as a > great multistakeholder governance innovation, that frees the world from > statist controls and provides brave new directions. > > (Disclaimer: I greatly respect all progressive people and organizations > wherever, putting in their effort in whichever way they think best. The > above caricature of ICANN like processes is just to make the point of its > inherent dangers, even absurdity, to the extent they seek to deal with any > really crucial global political issue at all.) > > Parminder > > > jlfullsack wrote: > > Dear Parminder > > I thank you warmly for having expressed the very concerns (and even the > fear) of most of the grass-root CS organisations that are implied in the > WSIS follow-up process. > > Personnally and on behalf of CSDPTT I am pleased to share with you the > prevalence of public interest and the permanent worry about real development > : these should be the major drivers in all our activities and commitments, > and -in this case- in Internet governance issues which will have an > important -either positive or negative- impact in developing countries. > > Friendy yours > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Parminder > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement > re: > > Robin and Milton, > > IT for Change will sign on the text put up by Milton, and I as a member of > IGC also support that IGC signs it. > > I must however mention a couple of issues, on behalf of my organization, > which do not impact the above endorsement. I apologize for this longish > text, but we have reservations about the ICANN's governance model and we > need to mention them while supporting an endorsement of a relatively minor > structural change in it. It is also relevant to mention these issues in > some detail because of the surprise, and perhaps exasperation (I dont say > that it is not justified), shown by some members on this list as to why do > some members active in IGC/ IGF not engage sufficiently with ICANN where > some 'real work' may be getting done. > > This is how we see this space, and decide on our engagements, thinly > resourced that we are. > > Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, though > often important, administrative tasks in managing some critical Internet > resources, meaning tasks that do not have much political implication, or > ICANN indeed does tasks with significant political implications. In case its > is the former, we are not really that interested in its work. Perhaps that > may appear a little rude. Better to say we do not have the time vis a vis > our primary inclinations as an organization. We primarily do development > work, with a keen understanding of the political nature of development. In > this context, we consider it our task to specifically represent the the > interests of the currently disadvantaged and marginalized sections.Technical > governance is not our core mandate; only to the extent it has strong > political implications vis a vis 'development constituencies' do we get > involved. > > However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political > implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive logic - > for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply side of the > 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other commercial and > non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its basic criterion for > legitimate interest/ representation that requires one to at least be a > domain registrant. We do not think that is the point - for instance even in > the KTCN campaign of NCUC on the FoE issue. > > Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems > disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may read, > business sector) - to counter whose power is a central governance issue at > the global level - are exactly the wrong models of global governance to > promote. Such models are poised to overall do much greater damage than > good to the global public interest. They are especially dangerous when they > seek political sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor > structural adjustments are aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there > is a certain complicity in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of > some of the involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate > ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or any > other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN. > > On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder models > for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are politically > accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but US government is > not). We also agree that a simple inter-governmental system is not enough to > constitute such an 'legitimate entity' as representing global public > interest, especially in the new global circumstances created by the > Internet. New, and perhaps innovative, ways to construct the needed > legitimacies must therefore be tried out. Such efforts should however remain > rooted in key percepts of what is public interest, and what can constitute > its legitimate representation. The separation between private interest and > public interest needs to be maintained, indeed honored. There should be > sufficient proactive effort towards disproportionately higher representation > of those currently marginalized, and not the opposite as these new models of > governance do, in the name of some kind of neat efficiency and the like. > All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - > that look like they are especially pushing forward marginalized interests > attract our strong interest. All 'innovations' that further entrench > dominant interests -whether economic, political, geo-political, class - are > correspondingly received with strong political opposition. > > Warding off illegitimate statist interests has been a chief, at one stage > even the central, struggle in the IG arena. Many actors who have shown > exemplary dedication as well as foresight in fighting these interests, with > a good degree of success, must forever remain our heroes. However, some of > the same actors, and/or their second generation flag-bearers, are much less > cognizant of another struggle in the IG arena which is at least as > important. The struggle to make sure that the Internet does not become an > instrument of a new global order that it even further dominated by the > already powerful; where political power is allocated on the basis on the > economic power one already posses, instead of moderating it, and where new > governance systems provide political cover and legitimacy to economic > exploitation. It is no longer acceptable for any civil society constituency > claiming any degree of global legitimacy to not represent both these > struggles equally. We not only find the global governance models implied in > the ICANN system quite ominous for the future of global governance, we > would also like the global civil society engaged with its forums to better > represent the political interests of the currently excluded/ marginalized > sections. > > However, we do recognize that the battle has to be fought on many fronts, > and many in the NCUC have done great work in developing more spaces for > public interest constituencies, and taking up some important public interest > issues. > > We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC adopted by > the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially agree that its > direct instead of constituency based election of council members is a much > better process. It is better because it has a higher chance of representing > global public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider > support. > > Parminder > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The organizations and individuals listed below are members of and > participants in the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. We wish to > express our support for version 6.0 of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group > (NCSG) charter developed by the Noncommercial Users Constituency. While > there may still be room for minor improvements, we believe that the basic > principles on which the charter is founded provide the fairest and most > effective basis for civil society representation in ICANN’s Generic Names > Supporting Organization. > > We specifically support the proposal because: > > * It was developed transparently and with many opportunities for input by > relevant ICANN participants; > > * It makes it easy to form constituencies or affinity groups, but avoids > fragmentation of noncommercial stakeholders into independent constituencies > with separate mailing lists, administrative structures and representatives; > > * It permits individual membership in the NCSG and does not require > individuals to fit themselves into arbitrarily-defined categories that may > not correspond to their interests and needs; > > * It fosters representation of minority viewpoints in consensus-based > Working Groups, but does not rigidly assign votes to small factions, instead > offering them a chance to build consensus > > We also note that the alternative charter proposal seems designed to give a > specific faction guaranteed Council seats and does not foster global, > geographically diverse representation. > > We appreciate ICANN’s effort to make its GNSO more representative and urge > you to ratify and accept the NCSG charter. > > Signed, > > -- > > -- > > Etc. > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 5 07:02:37 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:32:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> Milton >Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global institution(s) are accountable to a broad >segment of Internet society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states. I do not understand the meaning of 'internet community' in this context and therefore cannot appreciate what you mean by political sovereignty for it. For us, all people of the world have legitimate and equal political interest in all key Internet matters. Can you please explain why would you not just say 'global community' instead. Any particular reason? Especially when we both agreed that we are speaking here of not some narrow technical policy issues, but important political matters, for instance FoE and 'access to knowledge'. The political use of the term 'internet community', in the manner I have seen it mostly used now-a-days, has become one part of a dangerous attempt to create an artificially new global reality, with a new basis for constructing its constituents, *for the purpose of engineering* some radical global political redetermination that fly in the face of long revered precepts of democracy, public interest, representation, social justice and equity. In such attempts at global political redetermination lie the principle congruity of neoliberal and the dominant information society discourses. >Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, >pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, China, Russia, Brazil and India for >dominance, and use IGOs (and ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two options are state-directed but the third relies more on great >power deals than established institutional frameworks. >I'll take 1). We are strongly opposed to any private (meaning business, using standard UN terminology) sector leadership for any global governance model. I made this clear in my previous email. We see important CS role in new global governance models, but there is lot to be done and learnt in this area, and it is really not easy to structure CS participation in any body with strong policy roles. As mentioned in my email, we very much encourage and participate in any innovations in this area (ex, IGF). In fact, WGIG did propose alternative global Internet policy institutional frameworks (see its models 1, 3 and 4), which were worth a try, and certainly worth full CS support. Unfortunately, much of the CS in the IG arena did not support these alternatives and struck to supporting existing ICANNist model. That was our best chance, and it is still our best chance. We need to work towards real internationalization of the IG system, with innovative models that have high civil society representation. Significantly, more we delay in supporting and pushing for such new possibilities, the global environment for acceptability of anything other than a simple UN kind inter-governmental model may only keep becoming worse. To sum our position, we prefer to work with democratically representative bodies, using CS presence for 'deepening democracy' at the global level, rather than acquiesce to corporate leadership of global governance. (Milton, since I understand you wont want corporates to have leading political role with regard to domestic issue inside the US, why have different standards and definitions of democracy for your country and for the outside?) We do realize that many governments are not themselves democratic representatives of the people of their countries, and in this context we should work hard for strengthening the democratization of national as well as global governance. The ruse of poor governance for privatizing governance has been used for too long by some global forces vis-a-vs developing countries for us not to understand this ploy rather well. It has been one of the main planks of the 'Washington consensus' policies. Interestingly UK's Prime Minister declared at the recent G 20 London summit that the 'Washington consensus was over'. Lets use this opportunity to move beyond its (more rabid) sister 'Californian consensus' (the ICANN+ model) towards some real globally democratic arrangements, rather than wait for a crisis, as the London Summit did. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder: > Thanks very much for this long-overdue but welcome and well-considered > explanation. We have indeed felt exasperated at times by the lack of > engagement by IGC/IGF civil society. It has always seemed to me that > ICANN repeatedly raises political issues and struggles that, in the > IGF context, attract a great deal of activity but have very little > impact relative to the ICANN venue. And while it wasn't hard to > surmise that some of the logic you developed below underlay the > hesitation to get involved, it is better to have an open dialogue > about this. > > A few specific responses and questions below: > > Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, > though often important, administrative tasks in managing some > critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much > political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant > political implications. > > It is the latter, obviously. > > However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political > implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive > logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and > supply side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between > other commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree > to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation > that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not > think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign > of NCUC on the FoE issue. > > For those who are weak on the acronyms, KTCN = keep the core > neutral, FoE = freedom of expression. I do not see how the KTCN > campaign had anything to do with whether one was a domain > registrant or not, but perhaps I miss your point. > > Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems > disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may > read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central > governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong > models of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to > overall do much greater damage than good to the global public > interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political > sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural > adjustments are aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there > is a certain complicity in the ICANN arena in this regard - > including of some of the involved civil society actors - we must > strongly disassociate ourselves from supporting any such > implications of the present, or any other, proposal for structural > changes in the ICANN. > > Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what > we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global > institution(s) are accountable to a broad segment of Internet > society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and > its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states. > > On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder > models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are > politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, > but US government is not). > > Who is? > Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general > framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) > take an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what > might be called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends > with EU, China, Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use > IGOs (and ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally > when not. The latter two options are state-directed but the third > relies more on great power deals than established institutional > frameworks. > > I'll take 1). > > All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, > whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward > marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All > 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether > economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly > received with strong political opposition. > > Understand this well. If you want to know why IGP verges on the > status of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC circles it's because > of this. But I suspect our concept of what kind of policies best > overcome marginalization may differ. > > Setting that aside, I see based on your final comments below that > you at least partly realize why the NCSG charter should be > supported in this case. To spell it out more clearly, the reason > NCSG is being targeted by ICANN staff as something to be > fragmented and manipulated is precisely because NCUC has been > completely independent of staff control and dominance (unlike ALAC > and the RALOs) and because the policies it has advocated have > seemed "oppositional" and challenging to some of those "dominant > interests." > > We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC > adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and > especially agree that its direct instead of constituency based > election of council members is a much better process. It is > better because it has a higher chance of representing global > public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider > support. > > Thanks! When it comes to the bottom line, I am happy to see that > you "get 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Apr 5 07:15:34 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:15:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] You won't believe this. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D84@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DED7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10F6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D84@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718D84 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at 01:05:33 on Sat, 4 Apr 2009, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >Lets wait and see how long it will need that G 7/G 20 will discover that >cybersecurity is also a security issue for their national agendas .... Cybersecurity was an issue for the G8 before 9/11, and was gaining momentum. As was the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention. After 9/11 most of the resources (people, as well as political will) was diverted to anti-terrorism activity in the offline world. -- 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 Sun Apr 5 11:42:54 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:42:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> As a quick response (on the road, must run out the door soon), I think we are using the term "private sector" in very different ways. To me it just means "civil society" in the more general sense that the term has been used in political theory, which includes the voluntary, agreement-based non-governmental parts of society. This includes both business and what we on this list consider to be noncommercial civil society. As for the term "Internet community," yes, I understand the ways that term has been misused, having critcizied it extensively myself. But I hate to concede the term, because it expresses the way Internet (and many other forms of ICT governance) blurs the line between producer and consumer of information and communication products and services. As a network technology the Internet creates its own public, its own community, its own polity. That is what I mean. --MM ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: Milton >Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global institution(s) are accountable to a broad >segment of Internet society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states. I do not understand the meaning of 'internet community' in this context and therefore cannot appreciate what you mean by political sovereignty for it. For us, all people of the world have legitimate and equal political interest in all key Internet matters. Can you please explain why would you not just say 'global community' instead. Any particular reason? Especially when we both agreed that we are speaking here of not some narrow technical policy issues, but important political matters, for instance FoE and 'access to knowledge'. The political use of the term 'internet community', in the manner I have seen it mostly used now-a-days, has become one part of a dangerous attempt to create an artificially new global reality, with a new basis for constructing its constituents, *for the purpose of engineering* some radical global political redetermination that fly in the face of long revered precepts of democracy, public interest, representation, social justice and equity. In such attempts at global political redetermination lie the principle congruity of neoliberal and the dominant information society discourses. >Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, >pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, China, Russia, Brazil and India for >dominance, and use IGOs (and ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two options are state-directed but the third relies more on great >power deals than established institutional frameworks. >I'll take 1). We are strongly opposed to any private (meaning business, using standard UN terminology) sector leadership for any global governance model. I made this clear in my previous email. We see important CS role in new global governance models, but there is lot to be done and learnt in this area, and it is really not easy to structure CS participation in any body with strong policy roles. As mentioned in my email, we very much encourage and participate in any innovations in this area (ex, IGF). In fact, WGIG did propose alternative global Internet policy institutional frameworks (see its models 1, 3 and 4), which were worth a try, and certainly worth full CS support. Unfortunately, much of the CS in the IG arena did not support these alternatives and struck to supporting existing ICANNist model. That was our best chance, and it is still our best chance. We need to work towards real internationalization of the IG system, with innovative models that have high civil society representation. Significantly, more we delay in supporting and pushing for such new possibilities, the global environment for acceptability of anything other than a simple UN kind inter-governmental model may only keep becoming worse. To sum our position, we prefer to work with democratically representative bodies, using CS presence for 'deepening democracy' at the global level, rather than acquiesce to corporate leadership of global governance. (Milton, since I understand you wont want corporates to have leading political role with regard to domestic issue inside the US, why have different standards and definitions of democracy for your country and for the outside?) We do realize that many governments are not themselves democratic representatives of the people of their countries, and in this context we should work hard for strengthening the democratization of national as well as global governance. The ruse of poor governance for privatizing governance has been used for too long by some global forces vis-a-vs developing countries for us not to understand this ploy rather well. It has been one of the main planks of the 'Washington consensus' policies. Interestingly UK's Prime Minister declared at the recent G 20 London summit that the 'Washington consensus was over'. Lets use this opportunity to move beyond its (more rabid) sister 'Californian consensus' (the ICANN+ model) towards some real globally democratic arrangements, rather than wait for a crisis, as the London Summit did. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: Parminder: Thanks very much for this long-overdue but welcome and well-considered explanation. We have indeed felt exasperated at times by the lack of engagement by IGC/IGF civil society. It has always seemed to me that ICANN repeatedly raises political issues and struggles that, in the IGF context, attract a great deal of activity but have very little impact relative to the ICANN venue. And while it wasn't hard to surmise that some of the logic you developed below underlay the hesitation to get involved, it is better to have an open dialogue about this. A few specific responses and questions below: Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, though often important, administrative tasks in managing some critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant political implications. It is the latter, obviously. However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC on the FoE issue. For those who are weak on the acronyms, KTCN = keep the core neutral, FoE = freedom of expression. I do not see how the KTCN campaign had anything to do with whether one was a domain registrant or not, but perhaps I miss your point. Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to overall do much greater damage than good to the global public interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or any other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN. Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global institution(s) are accountable to a broad segment of Internet society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states. On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but US government is not). Who is? Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, China, Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use IGOs (and ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two options are state-directed but the third relies more on great power deals than established institutional frameworks. I'll take 1). All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly received with strong political opposition. Understand this well. If you want to know why IGP verges on the status of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC circles it's because of this. But I suspect our concept of what kind of policies best overcome marginalization may differ. Setting that aside, I see based on your final comments below that you at least partly realize why the NCSG charter should be supported in this case. To spell it out more clearly, the reason NCSG is being targeted by ICANN staff as something to be fragmented and manipulated is precisely because NCUC has been completely independent of staff control and dominance (unlike ALAC and the RALOs) and because the policies it has advocated have seemed "oppositional" and challenging to some of those "dominant interests." We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of council members is a much better process. It is better because it has a higher chance of representing global public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider support. Thanks! When it comes to the bottom line, I am happy to see that you "get 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Apr 5 16:45:11 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:45:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> Milton L Mueller wrote: > As a quick response (on the road, must run out the door soon), I think > we are using the term “private sector” in very different ways. To me it > just means “civil society” in the more general sense that the term has > been used in political theory, which includes the voluntary, > agreement-based non-governmental parts of society. This includes both > business and what we on this list consider to be noncommercial civil > society. > There are different traditions in defining civil society. In the US, it is quite common to include the business sector in this definition. All out attempts to delineate civil society, for example against hybrids such as ISOC or people with several hats, have amounted to nothing. Yet, for out own discussion it would be useful if we could at least agree whether or not the private sector is part of our understanding of civil society. > > As for the term “Internet community,” yes, I understand the ways that > term has been misused, having critcizied it extensively myself. But I > hate to concede the term, because it expresses the way Internet (and > many other forms of ICT governance) blurs the line between producer and > consumer of information and communication products and services. As a > network technology the Internet creates its own public, its own > community, its own polity. That is what I mean. I agree with Milton in that it is worth to reclaim this term. If we agree that world citizens cannot be experts in every policy field and that the democracy beyond the nation state is likely to be organized by sectors or areas of interest, then it makes sense to speak of communities who engage in certain areas such as the Internet community which cares about the general mode of using, providing and changing the net's infrastructure. jeanette > > > > --MM > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:03 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: > > > > Milton > >>Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we > seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global > institution(s) are accountable to a broad >segment of Internet society. > But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its status vis > a vis U.S. government and other states. > > I do not understand the meaning of 'internet community' in this context > and therefore cannot appreciate what you mean by political sovereignty > for it. For us, all people of the world have legitimate and equal > political interest in all key Internet matters. Can you please explain > why would you not just say 'global community' instead. Any particular > reason? Especially when we both agreed that we are speaking here of not > some narrow technical policy issues, but important political matters, > for instance FoE and 'access to knowledge'. > > The political use of the term 'internet community', in the manner I have > seen it mostly used now-a-days, has become one part of a dangerous > attempt to create an artificially new global reality, with a new basis > for constructing its constituents, *for the purpose of engineering* some > radical global political redetermination that fly in the face of long > revered precepts of democracy, public interest, representation, social > justice and equity. In such attempts at global political redetermination > lie the principle congruity of neoliberal and the dominant information > society discourses. > >>Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general framework > of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, > >pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be called a > competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, China, Russia, > Brazil and India for >dominance, and use IGOs (and ICANN) as tools when > convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two options are > state-directed but the third relies more on great >power deals than > established institutional frameworks. > >>I'll take 1). > > We are strongly opposed to any private (meaning business, using standard > UN terminology) sector leadership for any global governance model. I > made this clear in my previous email. We see important CS role in new > global governance models, but there is lot to be done and learnt in this > area, and it is really not easy to structure CS participation in any > body with strong policy roles. As mentioned in my email, we very much > encourage and participate in any innovations in this area (ex, IGF). In > fact, WGIG did propose alternative global Internet policy institutional > frameworks (see its models 1, 3 and 4), which were worth a try, and > certainly worth full CS support. Unfortunately, much of the CS in the > IG arena did not support these alternatives and struck to supporting > existing ICANNist model. That was our best chance, and it is still our > best chance. We need to work towards real internationalization of the IG > system, with innovative models that have high civil society > representation. Significantly, more we delay in supporting and pushing > for such new possibilities, the global environment for acceptability of > anything other than a simple UN kind inter-governmental model may only > keep becoming worse. > > To sum our position, we prefer to work with democratically > representative bodies, using CS presence for 'deepening democracy' at > the global level, rather than acquiesce to corporate leadership of > global governance. (Milton, since I understand you wont want corporates > to have leading political role with regard to domestic issue inside the > US, why have different standards and definitions of democracy for your > country and for the outside?) > > We do realize that many governments are not themselves democratic > representatives of the people of their countries, and in this context > we should work hard for strengthening the democratization of national as > well as global governance. The ruse of poor governance for privatizing > governance has been used for too long by some global forces vis-a-vs > developing countries for us not to understand this ploy rather well. It > has been one of the main planks of the 'Washington consensus' policies. > Interestingly UK's Prime Minister declared at the recent G 20 London > summit that the 'Washington consensus was over'. Lets use this > opportunity to move beyond its (more rabid) sister 'Californian > consensus' (the ICANN+ model) towards some real globally democratic > arrangements, rather than wait for a crisis, as the London Summit did. > > > > Parminder > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Parminder: > > Thanks very much for this long-overdue but welcome and well-considered > explanation. We have indeed felt exasperated at times by the lack of > engagement by IGC/IGF civil society. It has always seemed to me that > ICANN repeatedly raises political issues and struggles that, in the IGF > context, attract a great deal of activity but have very little impact > relative to the ICANN venue. And while it wasn't hard to surmise that > some of the logic you developed below underlay the hesitation to get > involved, it is better to have an open dialogue about this. > > > > A few specific responses and questions below: > > Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, > though often important, administrative tasks in managing some > critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much > political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant > political implications. > > > > It is the latter, obviously. > > > > However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political > implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive > logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply > side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other > commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its > basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation that > requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not think > that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC > on the FoE issue. > > > > For those who are weak on the acronyms, KTCN = keep the core > neutral, FoE = freedom of expression. I do not see how the KTCN > campaign had anything to do with whether one was a domain registrant > or not, but perhaps I miss your point. > > Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems > disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may > read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central > governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models > of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to overall > do much greater damage than good to the global public interest. They > are especially dangerous when they seek political sovereignty, which > we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are aimed > at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity > in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the > involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate > ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or > any other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN. > > > > Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what > we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global > institution(s) are accountable to a broad segment of Internet > society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and > its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states. > > On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder > models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are > politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but > US government is not). > > > > Who is? > > Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general > framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take > an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be > called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, > China, Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use IGOs (and > ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The > latter two options are state-directed but the third relies more on > great power deals than established institutional frameworks. > > > > I'll take 1). > > > > All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, > whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward > marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All > 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether > economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly > received with strong political opposition. > > > > Understand this well. If you want to know why IGP verges on the > status of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC circles it's because of > this. But I suspect our concept of what kind of policies best > overcome marginalization may differ. > > > > Setting that aside, I see based on your final comments below that > you at least partly realize why the NCSG charter should be supported > in this case. To spell it out more clearly, the reason NCSG is being > targeted by ICANN staff as something to be fragmented and > manipulated is precisely because NCUC has been completely > independent of staff control and dominance (unlike ALAC and the > RALOs) and because the policies it has advocated have seemed > "oppositional" and challenging to some of those "dominant interests." > > We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC > adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially > agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of > council members is a much better process. It is better because it > has a higher chance of representing global public interest, each > candidate having to muster a much wider support. > > > > Thanks! When it comes to the bottom line, I am happy to see that you > "get 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 gpaque at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 23:58:57 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 23:28:57 -0430 Subject: [governance] Committing to Workshop Proposals In-Reply-To: <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <72E2B5A9BEAA49A1A619F939A2EA7D85@GINGERLAPTOP> Several excellent ideas have been proposed for IGF 2009 Workshops to be submitted in conjunction with the IGC. As the deadline of April 15 is approaching very fast, we ask that those interested in a particular workshop post to the list advising their desire to submit a workshop proposal in conjunction with the IGC and at the same time their commitment to prepare and post the proposal back to the list. Please post your interest and commitment as soon as possible--within the next day or so--and then the proposal in the IGF format (see http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-templ ate-for-workshop-proposals ) within a week. Workshops that had been proposed: Workshop on Online educational techniques Workshop on the role of Government in IG Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet Workshop on Net Neutrality ('NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it') Internationalisation workshop Workshop on awareness and practical applications for people with disabilities Workshop on e-crimes, legislation and experiences Workshop on Remote Participation The RPWG (Remote Participation Working Group) has notified their agreement to prepare the RP Workshop proposal for submission in conjunction with the IGC. Thanks. We look forward to reading the concrete proposals. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 02:21:53 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> As a quick response (on the road, must run out the door soon), I think we >> are using the term “private sector” in very different ways. To me it just >> means “civil society” in the more general sense that the term has been used >> in political theory, which includes the voluntary, agreement-based >> non-governmental parts of society. This includes both business and what we >> on this list consider to be noncommercial civil society. >> > There are different traditions in defining civil society. In the US, it is > quite common to include the business sector in this definition. All out > attempts to delineate civil society, for example against hybrids such as > ISOC or people with several hats, have amounted to nothing. Yet, for out own > discussion it would be useful if we could at least agree whether or not the > private sector is part of our understanding of civil society. >> >> As for the term “Internet community,” yes, I understand the ways that term >> has been misused, having critcizied it extensively myself. But I hate to >> concede the term, because it expresses the way Internet (and many other >> forms of ICT governance) blurs the line between producer and consumer of >> information and communication products and services. As a network technology >> the Internet creates its own public, its own community, its own polity. That >> is what I mean. > > I agree with Milton in that it is worth to reclaim this term. If we agree > that world citizens cannot be experts in every policy field and that the > democracy beyond the nation state is likely to be organized  by  sectors or > areas of interest, then it makes sense to speak of communities who engage in > certain areas such as the Internet community which cares about the general > mode of using, providing and changing the net's infrastructure. Can I just point out that there is nothing new in the term "Internet Community". It's been use use for a very long time (2 decades perhaps), and as such it has a well established pedigree. There is no attempt to create a new global reality here, the reality has long been in existence. -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 6 04:29:38 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:29:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <49D9BD72.3070003@wzb.eu> McTim wrote: > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> As a quick response (on the road, must run out the door soon), I think we >>> are using the term “private sector” in very different ways. To me it just >>> means “civil society” in the more general sense that the term has been used >>> in political theory, which includes the voluntary, agreement-based >>> non-governmental parts of society. This includes both business and what we >>> on this list consider to be noncommercial civil society. >>> >> There are different traditions in defining civil society. In the US, it is >> quite common to include the business sector in this definition. All out >> attempts to delineate civil society, for example against hybrids such as >> ISOC or people with several hats, have amounted to nothing. Yet, for out own >> discussion it would be useful if we could at least agree whether or not the >> private sector is part of our understanding of civil society. >>> As for the term “Internet community,” yes, I understand the ways that term >>> has been misused, having critcizied it extensively myself. But I hate to >>> concede the term, because it expresses the way Internet (and many other >>> forms of ICT governance) blurs the line between producer and consumer of >>> information and communication products and services. As a network technology >>> the Internet creates its own public, its own community, its own polity. That >>> is what I mean. >> I agree with Milton in that it is worth to reclaim this term. If we agree >> that world citizens cannot be experts in every policy field and that the >> democracy beyond the nation state is likely to be organized by sectors or >> areas of interest, then it makes sense to speak of communities who engage in >> certain areas such as the Internet community which cares about the general >> mode of using, providing and changing the net's infrastructure. > > Can I just point out that there is nothing new in the term "Internet > Community". You are right, there is nothing new about the term. However, we are debating whether it makes sense for civil society to use this term. Parminder expressed doubts, Milton and I responded. jeanette It's been use use for a very long time (2 decades > perhaps), and as such it has a well established pedigree. There is no > attempt to create a new global reality here, the reality has long been > in existence. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 6 04:48:11 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:48:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] Committing to Workshop Proposals In-Reply-To: <72E2B5A9BEAA49A1A619F939A2EA7D85@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <8184F5DA33374F8684BE5A8F6B23B45A@IAN> Just so its entirely clear - If IGC as such is going to signon to a workshop proposal, we need to be able to view the proposal in its form for submission and leave adequate time for people to comment (or object is they feel to do so). The format for submissions needs to include 1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words) 2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200 words) 3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes (Critical Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or under the cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)? If so which one? (Please select the most appropriate one.) 4. Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the link to the report. 5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself? 1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? 2. If not, who do you think should organize it? So that's what we need to see for each proposal. As submissions are only about nine days away, we really need to see a formal proposal by say Thursday this week to have adequate time for comments. By all means approach others to formulate a proposal! Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: 06 April 2009 13:59 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: 'Marilia Maciel'; 'Ian Peter' > Subject: [governance] Committing to Workshop Proposals > > Several excellent ideas have been proposed for IGF 2009 Workshops to be > submitted in conjunction with the IGC. As the deadline of April 15 is > approaching very fast, we ask that those interested in a particular > workshop > post to the list advising their desire to submit a workshop proposal in > conjunction with the IGC and at the same time their commitment to prepare > and post the proposal back to the list. Please post your interest and > commitment as soon as possible--within the next day or so--and then the > proposal in the IGF format (see > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386- > templ > ate-for-workshop-proposals ) within a week. > > Workshops that had been proposed: > Workshop on Online educational techniques > Workshop on the role of Government in IG > Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet > Workshop on Net Neutrality ('NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it') > Internationalisation workshop > Workshop on awareness and practical applications for people with > disabilities > Workshop on e-crimes, legislation and experiences > Workshop on Remote Participation > > The RPWG (Remote Participation Working Group) has notified their agreement > to prepare the RP Workshop proposal for submission in conjunction with the > IGC. > > Thanks. We look forward to reading the concrete proposals. Best, Ginger > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 6 04:59:31 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:59:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: In-Reply-To: <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: >Milton L Mueller wrote: >>As a quick response (on the road, must run out >>the door soon), I think we are using the term >>³private sector² in very different ways. To me >>it just means ³civil society² in the more >>general sense that the term has been used in >>political theory, which includes the voluntary, >>agreement-based non-governmental parts of >>society. This includes both business and what >>we on this list consider to be noncommercial >>civil society. >> >There are different traditions in defining civil >society. In the US, it is quite common to >include the business sector in this definition. >All out attempts to delineate civil society, for >example against hybrids such as ISOC or people >with several hats, have amounted to nothing. >Yet, for out own discussion it would be useful >if we could at least agree whether or not the >private sector is part of our understanding of >civil society. Given the caucus' origins are with WSIS, where the private (business/commercial) sector was identified as a separate group, seems right to say civil society for the purposes of the caucus and IGF means noncommercial civil society. Wasn't WSIS the first time (or among the first times) the UN formally recognized business/private sector as a group separate from civil society. Until WSIS, civil society in the UN meant just about everyone except governments (including parliamentarians and media.) Private sector coordination in the ICANN context means coordination *not* led by government, it includes both commercial and noncommercial (i.e. private vs public.) ICANN is a private not-for-profit corporation. Private here means the same as the traditional broad definition of civil society as everything but govt. So... civil society in IGF means noncommercial. Private sector coordination and the Internet means coordination led by both commercial and noncommercial actors. Internet community... too confusing for me. (All sounds too convoluted to be correct :-) ) Adam >> >>As for the term ³Internet community,² yes, I >>understand the ways that term has been misused, >>having critcizied it extensively myself. But I >>hate to concede the term, because it expresses >>the way Internet (and many other forms of ICT >>governance) blurs the line between producer and >>consumer of information and communication >>products and services. As a network technology >>the Internet creates its own public, its own >>community, its own polity. That is what I mean. > >I agree with Milton in that it is worth to >reclaim this term. If we agree that world >citizens cannot be experts in every policy field >and that the democracy beyond the nation state >is likely to be organized by sectors or areas >of interest, then it makes sense to speak of >communities who engage in certain areas such as >the Internet community which cares about the >general mode of using, providing and changing >the net's infrastructure. >jeanette >> >> >>--MM >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>*From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>*Sent:* Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:03 AM >>*To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller >>*Subject:* Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re: >> >> >>Milton >> >>>Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we >>seek. It should, of course, be one in which the >>new global institution(s) are accountable to a >>broad >segment of Internet society. But this is >>the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and >>its status vis a vis U.S. government and other >>states. >> >>I do not understand the meaning of 'internet >>community' in this context and therefore cannot >>appreciate what you mean by political >>sovereignty for it. For us, all people of the >>world have legitimate and equal political >>interest in all key Internet matters. Can you >>please explain why would you not just say >>'global community' instead. Any particular >>reason? Especially when we both agreed that we >>are speaking here of not some narrow technical >>policy issues, but important political matters, >>for instance FoE and 'access to knowledge'. >> >>The political use of the term 'internet >>community', in the manner I have seen it mostly >>used now-a-days, has become one part of a >>dangerous attempt to create an artificially new >>global reality, with a new basis for >>constructing its constituents, *for the purpose >>of engineering* some radical global political >>redetermination that fly in the face of long >>revered precepts of democracy, public interest, >>representation, social justice and equity. In >>such attempts at global political >>redetermination lie the principle congruity of >>neoliberal and the dominant information society >>discourses. >> >>>Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general framework >>of private sector, civil society based >>governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, >>>pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what >>might be called a competing hegemon approach, >>in which US contends with EU, China, Russia, >>Brazil and India for >dominance, and use IGOs >>(and ICANN) as tools when convenient and act >>unilaterally when not. The latter two options >>are state-directed but the third relies more on >>great >power deals than established >>institutional frameworks. >> >>>I'll take 1). >> >>We are strongly opposed to any private (meaning >>business, using standard UN terminology) sector >>leadership for any global governance model. I >>made this clear in my previous email. We see >>important CS role in new global governance >>models, but there is lot to be done and learnt >>in this area, and it is really not easy to >>structure CS participation in any body with >>strong policy roles. As mentioned in my email, >>we very much encourage and participate in any >>innovations in this area (ex, IGF). In fact, >>WGIG did propose alternative global Internet >>policy institutional frameworks (see its >>models 1, 3 and 4), which were worth a try, >>and certainly worth full CS support. >>Unfortunately, much of the CS in the IG arena >>did not support these alternatives and struck >>to supporting existing ICANNist model. That was >>our best chance, and it is still our best >>chance. We need to work towards real >>internationalization of the IG system, with >>innovative models that have high civil society >>representation. Significantly, more we delay in >>supporting and pushing for such new >>possibilities, the global environment for >>acceptability of anything other than a simple >>UN kind inter-governmental model may only keep >>becoming worse. >> >>To sum our position, we prefer to work with >>democratically representative bodies, using CS >>presence for 'deepening democracy' at the >>global level, rather than acquiesce to >>corporate leadership of global governance. >>(Milton, since I understand you wont want >>corporates to have leading political role with >>regard to domestic issue inside the US, why >>have different standards and definitions of >>democracy for your country and for the outside?) >> >>We do realize that many governments are not >>themselves democratic representatives of the >>people of their countries, and in this context >>we should work hard for strengthening the >>democratization of national as well as global >>governance. The ruse of poor governance for >>privatizing governance has been used for too >>long by some global forces vis-a-vs developing >>countries for us not to understand this ploy >>rather well. It has been one of the main planks >>of the 'Washington consensus' policies. >>Interestingly UK's Prime Minister declared at >>the recent G 20 London summit that the >>'Washington consensus was over'. Lets use this >>opportunity to move beyond its (more rabid) >>sister 'Californian consensus' (the ICANN+ >>model) towards some real globally democratic >>arrangements, rather than wait for a crisis, as >>the London Summit did. >> >> >>Parminder >> >> >> >> >>Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >>Parminder: >> >>Thanks very much for this long-overdue but >>welcome and well-considered explanation. We >>have indeed felt exasperated at times by the >>lack of engagement by IGC/IGF civil society. It >>has always seemed to me that ICANN repeatedly >>raises political issues and struggles that, in >>the IGF context, attract a great deal of >>activity but have very little impact relative >>to the ICANN venue. And while it wasn't hard to >>surmise that some of the logic you developed >>below underlay the hesitation to get involved, >>it is better to have an open dialogue about >>this. >> >> >>A few specific responses and questions below: >> Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane, >> though often important, administrative tasks in managing some >> critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much >> political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant >> political implications.  >>     >> >> It is the latter, obviously. >> >>     >> >> However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political >> implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive >> logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply >> side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other >> commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its >> basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation that >> requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not think >> that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC >> on the FoE issue. >>     >> >> For those who are weak on the acronyms, KTCN = keep the core >> neutral, FoE = freedom of expression. I do not see how the KTCN >> campaign had anything to do with whether one was a domain registrant >> or not, but perhaps I miss your point. >> Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems >> disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may >> read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central >> governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models >> of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to overall >> do much greater damage than good to the global public interest. They >> are especially dangerous when they seek political sovereignty, which >> we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are aimed >> at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity >> in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the >> involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate >> ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or >> any other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN. >>     >> >> Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what >> we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global >> institution(s) are accountable to a broad segment of Internet >> society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and >> its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states. >> >> On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder >> models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are >> politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but >> US government is not).  >>     >> >> Who is? >> >> Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general >> framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take >> an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be >> called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, >> China, Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use IGOs (and >> ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The >> latter two options are state-directed but the third relies more on >> great power deals than established institutional frameworks. >> >>     >> >> I'll take 1). >> >>     >> >> All such governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, >> whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward >> marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All >> 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether >> economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly >> received with strong political opposition.  >>     >> >> Understand this well. If you want to know why IGP verges on the >> status of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC circles it's because of >> this. But I suspect our concept of what kind of policies best >> overcome marginalization may differ. >> >>     >> >> Setting that aside, I see based on your final comments below that >> you at least partly realize why the NCSG charter should be supported >> in this case. To spell it out more clearly, the reason NCSG is being >> targeted by ICANN staff as something to be fragmented and >> manipulated is precisely because NCUC has been completely >> independent of staff control and dominance (unlike ALAC and the >> RALOs) and because the policies it has advocated have seemed >> "oppositional" and challenging to some of those "dominant interests." >> >> We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC >> adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially >> agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of >> council members is a much better process. It is better because it >> has a higher chance of representing global public interest, each >> candidate having to muster a much wider support.  >>     >> >> Thanks! When it comes to the bottom line, I am happy to see that you >> "get it." >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 6 05:14:25 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:14:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors Message-ID: February last year we sent a comment for a consultation on the renewal and restructuring of the MAG asking for clarification about the role of Chair's Special Advisors and criteria for their selection. Seems strange to have criteria and process for MAG members, and then a group of people who act as equal to any other MAG member, but without any concern for their selection, diversity, representation, even number. As there's a MAG renewal process going on now, suggest we ask that answers about the role etc of advisors be given when the new MAG is announced. 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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Apr 6 11:55:41 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:55:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49da25fda85ba_20b81555555879b4412@weasel22.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 6 12:44:11 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:44:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49DA315B.70808@rits.org.br> Dear Adam, this is no different from the past, of course, when other people were special advisors. But since the choice of special advisors is the chair's and not subject to recommendation lists, there remains to discuss only what level or type of participation they should have in the formal MAG processes. The chair probably is going to revamp the special advisors list as soon as the list of new members is announced (but both the SAs' and members' lists are, again, executive decisions, either by the chair or the secretariat general, we constituencies can only recommend names for members and I do not think it makes sense recommending names for SAs). The very need for SAs (or lack of them) is an executive decision. Usually the online forum (mailing list) is free for anyone including SAs to opinate (and I think it should be). As to the MAG meetings, I understand the practice is SAs cannot vote when a vote is needed, and can ask for / provide clarifications and so on. What is the problem or issue you have detected which merits going into this, except for the comment you mention? I am far more worried about the new members' list, wondering if people who have been chosen less than a year ago will remain, how the 1/3 criteria will be applied (if so) etc. frt rgds --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > February last year we sent a comment for a consultation on the renewal > and restructuring of the MAG asking for > clarification about the role of Chair's Special Advisors and criteria > for their selection. > > Seems strange to have criteria and process for MAG members, and then a > group of people who act as equal to any other MAG member, but without > any concern for their selection, diversity, representation, even number. > > As there's a MAG renewal process going on now, suggest we ask that > answers about the role etc of advisors be given when the new MAG is > announced. > > 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 > > -- ------------------------------------------------ Carlos A. Afonso Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits www.rits.org.br www.rets.org.br www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br www.ritsnet.org.br ------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 7 01:54:50 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 15:54:50 +1000 Subject: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper Message-ID: Just a reminder that comments on the Progam Paper need to be submitted by April 13. We will not have time for an IGC response, but members may like to comment individually. Details are at www.intgovforum.org Here are some comments I submitted as an individual FYI. 1. I am surprised that Internet Rights and Principles is not a session theme, given the strong support it gained from all stakeholder groups during the Open Consultations. I am also surprised at the objection apparently raised during MAG, given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) My suggestion is that a good theme for the meeting would be "Internet for All - Rights and Principles". This language meets both major proposals which have been put forward. 2. I am surprised to see Emerging Issues dropped. While agreeing that the sessions at Rio and Hyderabad on this subject were less than optimal, I think this is largely because we have not clearly defined what his session should achieve and how we should go about making the session effective. Emerging Issues should not be about issues emerging during the conference. It should be taking a longer term view of the issues that will arise in Internet Governance. An IGF that doesn't look past the immediate issues on its agenda is one that has little choice but to be a reactive body discussing only the status quo, in a media environment where change is rapid. Today's Internet is nothing like the Internet of 20 years ago - and the Internet 20 years hence will again be vastly different. If IGF is not able to look at longer term issues and take them into account it will largely weaken its capacity to be effective. 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 anja at itforchange.net Tue Apr 7 07:42:19 2009 From: anja at itforchange.net (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:12:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49DB3C1B.5040600@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 07:45:01 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik dammak) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:45:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Committing to Workshop Proposals In-Reply-To: <72E2B5A9BEAA49A1A619F939A2EA7D85@GINGERLAPTOP> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7148D5E4C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D2F20B.5030207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10DB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D88FCD.9090103@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55739@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49D91857.6080905@wzb.eu> <72E2B5A9BEAA49A1A619F939A2EA7D85@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: Hello All, about workshop proposals, Marilia Maciel and me, we are going to send a proposal for organizing IG and Youth workshop. We will share our proposal with all IGC members and hope to have feedback about. Regards Rafik On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Several excellent ideas have been proposed for IGF 2009 Workshops to be > submitted in conjunction with the IGC. As the deadline of April 15 is > approaching very fast, we ask that those interested in a particular > workshop > post to the list advising their desire to submit a workshop proposal in > conjunction with the IGC and at the same time their commitment to prepare > and post the proposal back to the list. Please post your interest and > commitment as soon as possible--within the next day or so--and then the > proposal in the IGF format (see > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/386-templ > ate-for-workshop-proposals) within a week. > > Workshops that had been proposed: > Workshop on Online educational techniques > Workshop on the role of Government in IG > Workshop on developing a zero carbon Internet > Workshop on Net Neutrality ('NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it') > Internationalisation workshop > Workshop on awareness and practical applications for people with > disabilities > Workshop on e-crimes, legislation and experiences > Workshop on Remote Participation > > The RPWG (Remote Participation Working Group) has notified their agreement > to prepare the RP Workshop proposal for submission in conjunction with the > IGC. > > Thanks. We look forward to reading the concrete proposals. Best, Ginger > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 7 12:28:16 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] NN Workshop Thread In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <49C88F7C.6040304@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49DB7F20.4000502@itforchange.net> There has been an interesting development in the Network Neutrality (NN) arena in Norway which is perhaps important to discuss here, and is certainly important in terms of the proposed workshop by IGC on NN. As pointed out in the IGP's posting here, a wide range of stakeholders in Norway have agreed to a set of principles of Network Neutrality. A very good example that , unlike what many opined on this list, it is possible to agree to a workable set of NN principles. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/norway-gets-voluntary-net-neutrality.ars . Also see the actual set of NN principles, a link to which is given in this news item. Since Internet is principally a global network, it should be obvious that we should also explore the possibility of a global consensus on NN principles.... It certainly looks possible if private sector, civil society and public sector actors can agree to one set in Norway. Accordingly, it will be better if we call our proposed workshop a bit more positively as 'Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus'. Who knows this issue could mature to become the subject of a round table in IGF-5, something which we should aim at. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > Yes, yes, yes. I like that formulation. Would love to be on such a > panel. This must be "agree with Parminder Day." > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > In fact so interesting, that I think we should have a workshop on > this issue alone. 'NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it'. In any > case it is always better to have more focussed issues for workshops. > > I do often wonder that if US, or US plus EU, decide that > such-and-such NN regulation is necessary to be observed by the > concerned actors, would that not set the default global regime for > NN. Do developing countries - even a relatively larger and more > powerful one like India - have any serious options but to accept > the default regime. > > What NN issues extend across the global Internet, or are likely to > so extend? What accordingly are NN issues that are best dealt by a > globally democratic system - and if there isnt one at present, the > problems that such a situation presents. > > Discussing NN in terms of global Internet policy will be in > accordance of the central mandate of the IGF as a policy dialogue > forum for global Internet policy issues. parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 7 13:50:36 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:50:36 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: <49DB3C1B.5040600@itforchange.net> References: <49DB3C1B.5040600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: May I strongly support Ian Peter's point. Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 Von: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. April 2009 13:42 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper Thank you for drawing attention to this again, Ian. You are probably right that it will difficult to formulate a comprehensive IGF response at this late point in time. However, what would be possible, and important, is to express our collective regret that Internet Rights and Principles has not made it as the overarching theme of the forthcoming IGF, and this despite widespread support for this proposal. The MAG should be requested to heed this call and reconsider its decision. Anja Ian Peter wrote: Just a reminder that comments on the Progam Paper need to be submitted by April 13. We will not have time for an IGC response, but members may like to comment individually. Details are at www.intgovforum.org Here are some comments I submitted as an individual FYI. 1. I am surprised that Internet Rights and Principles is not a session theme, given the strong support it gained from all stakeholder groups during the Open Consultations. I am also surprised at the objection apparently raised during MAG, given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) My suggestion is that a good theme for the meeting would be "Internet for All - Rights and Principles". This language meets both major proposals which have been put forward. 2. I am surprised to see Emerging Issues dropped. While agreeing that the sessions at Rio and Hyderabad on this subject were less than optimal, I think this is largely because we have not clearly defined what his session should achieve and how we should go about making the session effective. Emerging Issues should not be about issues emerging during the conference. It should be taking a longer term view of the issues that will arise in Internet Governance. An IGF that doesn't look past the immediate issues on its agenda is one that has little choice but to be a reactive body discussing only the status quo, in a media environment where change is rapid. Today's Internet is nothing like the Internet of 20 years ago - and the Internet 20 years hence will again be vastly different. If IGF is not able to look at longer term issues and take them into account it will largely weaken its capacity to be effective. Ian Peter -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Senior Research Associate IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 www.ITforChange.net www.IS-Watch.net http://India.IS-Watch.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 21:16:32 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 22:16:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Applicants - Online Course on Global Norms Against Terrorism Message-ID: Sorry for the cross-posting. Best regards Marília [image: UNODC-Diplo-Logos] [image: spacer] * 2009 ONLINE COURSES GLOBAL NORMS AGAINST TERRORISM AT WORK: SETTING INTERNATIONAL LAW IN MOTION* The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and DiploFoundation are pleased to present two new online courses on the universal legal regime against terrorism: one for English-speaking participants, and one for French-speaking participants. Both aim to strengthen national capacities by assisting criminal justice officials and other individuals involved in counter-terrorism issues to develop the skills and knowledge required to effectively utilize the channels for international legal cooperation envisaged in 16 treaties adopted within the UN system between 1963 and 2005, and a number of binding resolutions of the Security Council. *Methodology* The courses are conducted entirely online, over a period of 6 weeks. Reading materials and tools for online interaction are provided through an online classroom. Each week, participants read the provided lecture text, adding questions, comments, and references in the form of hypertext entries. Lecturers and other participants read and respond to the hypertext entries, creating interaction based on the text. During the week, participants also complete additional online activities. At the end of the week, participants and lecturers meet online in a chat room to discuss the week's topic. Courses are based on a collaborative approach to learning, with a high level of interaction. The courses are delivered by staff members of the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the UNODC possessing experience in criminal justice issues and extensive work experience in the provision of legal advisory services and technical assistance worldwide. *Practical Information* *Fees:* Both courses are offered free of charge as part of a capacity-building initiative on the part of UNODC. *Timetable:* The course for English-speaking participants will begin during the week starting 4 May 2009. The course for French-speaking participants will begin during the week starting 18 May 2009. Selected applicants will receive full details of the timetable before the course begins. *Who should apply:* Criminal justice officers, practicing diplomats, civil servants, and others who work in the legal areas of international cooperation in criminal matters, or are involved in legislative drafting of criminal law texts. Priority will be given to applicants from developing countries. *Requirements:* Applicants must: § hold a university degree in Law, preferably with specialization in international/criminal law issues; § have at least three years work experience as legal practitioner or governmental official. Involvement in international cooperation matters, especially in criminal matters, is an asset; § possess sufficient ability in the course language to undertake postgraduate level studies; § have unrestricted access to the Internet using Firefox or Internet Explorer web browsers; § be ready to commit at least 6 hours per week to studies for the duration of the course. *How to Apply* The application deadline for the English-language course is *13 April 2009*. The application deadline for the French-language course is *20 April 2009*. Please visit the UNODC website for further information and to apply: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism/online-training-course.html ------------------------------ [image: Diplo logo] DiploFoundation ------------------------------ I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter . We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 26217 of my spam emails to date. The Professional version does not have this message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at itforchange.net Wed Apr 8 02:47:46 2009 From: anja at itforchange.net (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:17:46 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: References: <49DB3C1B.5040600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <49DC4892.80204@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 03:43:06 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:43:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Authoritarianism - PayPal.com does not authorize Pakistan in its service list, Why? Message-ID: <701af9f70904080043y46e7eacbne6b427121e2dc458@mail.gmail.com> Internet Authoritarianism - PayPal does not authorize Pakistan in its service list, Why? The People of Pakistan, a populous ICT/Internet Consumer country, are denied of its basic right to access PayPal.com services in Pakistan! www.PayPal.com exists today as an important platform for Electronic Commerce today globally. Knowledge Workers all over the world work online and recieve payments as well as transfer them to get work done from other knowledge workers. Unfortunately, PayPal does not include Pakistan in its list whereas it includes both China and India. Pakistan – purely from your business perspective may not be that big of an economy, but it surely has an economy that is larger and more active than Bhutan, Chad, Honduras, Somalia, Maldives, Rwanda, Uganda, Yemen —combined! Pakistan may not be that big on PayPal's radar, perhaps Pakistan is not even equated to a blip, but a country of 170 Million, to be blatantly ignored (there may be agreement or disagreement to the choice of words, if the above mentioned countries can have PayPal, we would like to know what piece of legislation, law, banking infrastructure, etc. prevents eBay/PayPal from including Pakistan under its countries-in-which-PayPal-works umbrella). Pakistan’s predominant trading Partner happens to be the US. Within respect to both imports and exports (discounting oil). Benefit of PayPal.com to the Internet and Civil Society: Civil Society, the Free & Open Source Software development community and social development organizations worldwide use PayPal.com to accept donations or purchase needed products and human resource services online to fulfill their service to humanity objectives as PayPal.com offers one of the most secure means to accept and deliver payments using the Internet to more than a hundred countries worldwide that includes many developing world regions. PayPal keeps both Bank Account Details and Credit Card numbers hidden. PayPal enbles easy acceptance of online payments. You can accept credit card or paypal payments by embedding html code in your web page. PayPal accepts Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and eChecks. There is no need for customers to have a PayPal account and only Business and Premier account holders can accept payments from a non-PayPal member. With the PayPal Account Optional feature, customers new to PayPal don’t need to create a PayPal Account to pay a Money Request/Invoice or to complete a purchase. Alternatively the customer can pay with a credit card. PayPal.com's Facilitation to Internet Consumers and Producers: PayPal enables users to send money to anyone with an email address. To accept payments online, without a website, PayPal's Email Payments is a fast and secure way to bill customers and accept credit card, bank, and PayPal payments online. There is no separate hosting, shopping cart, payment gateway or merchant account required. For anyone that requires setting up their own shopping cart, merchant payment, payment gateway, people have the added problem of security. The cost of a shared certifcate to make a transaction safe is a hidden cost to associated with one's own merchant account thus minimum charges of most merchant accounts can add up fast.These processes are integrated in the PayPal Shopping CartSoftware so it solves all those problems. Thus PayPal's transactions are very secure with one's sensitive financial information is securely stored on their servers. When one uses PayPal to pay online, they have to simply provide only a PayPal email address. The merchants/retailers receive payment from PayPal without ever seeing your financial information. Every PayPal payment is followed by an email confirming one's transaction. PayPal claims transactions are covered with 100% protection against unauthorized payments sent from one's account. Pledging it to the Authorities: Even though our claims to have a prosperous IT Industry, we forget the thousands of knowledge workers that may have or not have any association with the Pakistani IT industry that can earn large sums of foriegn exchange for Pakistan working online over the Internet. Thousands of creative class individuals and freelance groups are turned down business because PayPal does not authorize Pakistan for its service. Todate, none of the IT/ICT industry associations, Ministry of IT&T Pakistan and Pakistan Software Export Board PSEB have took notice of this issue that could benefit the country immensely. Thousands of Pakistani's have discussed and petitioned over this issue over and over again for nearly a decade now. A search on google for Pakistani's concerned to get PayPal service authorized for pakistan returns over 4,090,000 with the search string "PayPal for Pakistan". For example: http://www.petitiononline.com/addpakpp/petition.html So many options and still no solution, but now: We have two UK based international banks in Pakistan and the most recent one is Barclays and these banks have strict account management and verification policies that can benefit the country if connected with PayPal. It is worth considering here that if 100,000 creative class and knowledge workers recieved over USD1000 per month, that would be quite an amount on monthly basis to bring back both interest in Pakistani IT Industry's input into the economy as well as demand for Pakistani Knowledge Work Force. This is my pledge on behalf of Pakistani People, Pakistan's Creative Class members and knowledge workers to the world to support us and help us pledge to convince Ebay PayPal's parent company and PayPal and Barclays to offer this service in Pakistan.Just to give you a personal example, a company interviewed me, approved my experience and skills but couldn't work with me because I didn't have a PayPal account and this is the same case with thousands of Pakistanis when you browse the Internet. PayPal Authorize Pakistan Now! Campaign: We have also established a global Campaign using Cause Pages on Facebook.com titled "PayPal Authorize Pakistan Now! Campaign" at: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/266093?m=085363e0 Please join this voice against Internet Authoritarianism by a developing world country to support and enable its citizens to be productivity and prevent its talent from being wasted and the people of the country to use the Internet to improve their social and economic conditions. A record of the public activity in Pakistan is available at the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy Please circulate this pledge widely to ICT CS Groups and Lists to help and support us combat the plagues in our region through ICTs! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 8 09:41:54 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:41:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also sent a comment: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the programme paper. There is broad agreement that national and regional IGF initiatives have been a great success, providing opportunities to share knowledge, experience and expertise. They have great potential to realize many of the capacity building and development goals of the IGF, as well as bringing developing countries' interests and needs to global IGF discussions. In addition to the reporting session proposed for the morning of the first day of the 2009 IGF, I recommend one of the round table discussions is used to give representatives of national and regional IGFs the opportunity to discuss their activities and outcomes. The round table format is well suited for sharing and discussing best practices, challenges and solutions, various needs and even any recommendations. The agenda for this round table should be developed by the organizers and participants of national and regional IGF initiatives in light of their respective activities and outcomes during the year. Thank you, Adam Peake Tokyo >Just a reminder that comments on the Progam Paper need to be >submitted by April 13. We will not have time for an IGC response, >but members may like to comment individually. > >Details are at www.intgovforum.org Here >are some comments I submitted as an individual FYI. > > > >1. I am surprised that Internet Rights and Principles is not a >session theme, given the strong support it gained from all >stakeholder groups during the Open Consultations. I am also >surprised at the objection apparently raised during MAG, given that >these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras >70 and 42) > >My suggestion is that a good theme for the meeting would be >"Internet for All - Rights and Principles". This language meets both >major proposals which have been put forward. > >2. I am surprised to see Emerging Issues dropped. While agreeing >that the sessions at Rio and Hyderabad on this subject were less >than optimal, I think this is largely because we have not clearly >defined what his session should achieve and how we should go about >making the session effective. > >Emerging Issues should not be about issues emerging during the >conference. It should be taking a longer term view of the issues >that will arise in Internet Governance. An IGF that doesn't look >past the immediate issues on its agenda is one that has little >choice but to be a reactive body discussing only the status quo, in >a media environment where change is rapid. Today's Internet is >nothing like the Internet of 20 years ago - and the Internet 20 >years hence will again be vastly different. If IGF is not able to >look at longer term issues and take them into account it will >largely weaken its capacity to be effective. > > >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 8 09:51:12 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:51:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors In-Reply-To: <49DA315B.70808@rits.org.br> References: <49DA315B.70808@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Carlos, Hi. I think it's reasonable that the chair decides who to appoint as his advisors, they are his advisors after all (and the secretary general, apparently, appoints the MAG, his advisors.) But if they are to have the same "powers" as the MAG members (except voting -- but does the MAG vote?) that doesn't mean we should not provide advice about issues such as gender, regional, stakeholder and balance, total number and even role. Example of why I think this worth raising again is gender. The consultations early last year about the MAG suggested, among other things that it need to improve gender balance. The MAG included this as part of the principles for rotation it sent to the secretary general. And I think the new membership last year tried to take that advice into account. But at the same time I think the number of male chair's advisors increased (currently 6:2) I suggest the chair should follow the same principles as the MAG, and take the composition of the MAG into consideration when appointing advisors. As the MAG is now being renewed it might be a good time to make this point to the chair? Then if as you say he's going to revamp his advisors he can do so while considering issues such as gender, regional balance etc. I wasn't particularly seeing any problem that made me make the comment, just read something that reminded me of the caucus' comments last year (and it would probably have been better if I'd remembered a couple of months ago when we were discussing the MAG.) Anyway, I remember it wasn't just the caucus that thought the chair's advisors an issue, but once the MAG rotation process got underway it seemed to be forgotten about. No need for you to ask for clarification, either this is something the caucus would like to comment on, or not. Thanks, Adam >Dear Adam, this is no different from the past, of course, when other >people were special advisors. But since the choice of special advisors >is the chair's and not subject to recommendation lists, there remains to >discuss only what level or type of participation they should have in the >formal MAG processes. > >The chair probably is going to revamp the special advisors list as soon >as the list of new members is announced (but both the SAs' and members' >lists are, again, executive decisions, either by the chair or the >secretariat general, we constituencies can only recommend names for >members and I do not think it makes sense recommending names for SAs). >The very need for SAs (or lack of them) is an executive decision. > >Usually the online forum (mailing list) is free for anyone including SAs >to opinate (and I think it should be). As to the MAG meetings, I >understand the practice is SAs cannot vote when a vote is needed, and >can ask for / provide clarifications and so on. > >What is the problem or issue you have detected which merits going into >this, except for the comment you mention? I am far more worried about >the new members' list, wondering if people who have been chosen less >than a year ago will remain, how the 1/3 criteria will be applied (if >so) etc. > >frt rgds > >--c.a. > >Adam Peake wrote: >> February last year we sent a comment for a consultation on the renewal >> and restructuring of the MAG asking for >> clarification about the role of Chair's Special Advisors and criteria >> for their selection. >> >> Seems strange to have criteria and process for MAG members, and then a >> group of people who act as equal to any other MAG member, but without >> any concern for their selection, diversity, representation, even number. >> >> As there's a MAG renewal process going on now, suggest we ask that >> answers about the role etc of advisors be given when the new MAG is >> announced. >> >> 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 >> >> > >-- > >------------------------------------------------ >Carlos A. Afonso >Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits >www.rits.org.br www.rets.org.br >www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br >www.ritsnet.org.br >------------------------------------------------ > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 8 10:02:10 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 23:02:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] NN Workshop Thread In-Reply-To: <49DB7F20.4000502@itforchange.net> References: <49C88F7C.6040304@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714961A05@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49DB7F20.4000502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Perhaps relevant. Japan introduced a set of 3 network neutrality principles in November 2007, they were introduced as an amendment to the "New Competition Policy Program 2010" and are official policy: *IP networks should be accessible to users and easy to use, allowing ready access to content and application layers * IP based networks should be accessible and available to any terminal that meets relevant technical standards and should support terminal-to-terminal (or "end-to-end") communication *Users should be provided with equality of access to telecommunications and platform layers at a reasonable price ("users" refers to end users and content providers and other companies conducting business using IP networks) Network neutrality also includes the concept of utilizing IP networks with the proper allocation of costs, and without discrimination. There's a report of a ministry working group on network neutrality online (translated by Izumi's organization.) The study group that developed the network neutrality principles also recommended a working group should look packet shaping. May 2008 a group of telecom business associations (ministry as an observer) came up with a set of guidelines which basically say: Based on the underlying principle that ISPs should increase network capacity in line with increases in network traffic, i.e. packet shaping should only be allowed in exceptional situations. When implemented, packet shaping should be justified by objective criteria such as QoS of general users being degraded by traffic from other applications, e.g. P2P. Secrecy of communications should be maintained in accordance with the Telecom business law (i.e. deep packet inspection is unlikely). Users should be informed about their ISP's packet shaping policy in their contract terms and conditions. ISPs will also required to provide relevant information to content providers and other ISPs about any shaping. Arbitrary use of packet shaping must be avoided. Adam >There has been an interesting development in the >Network Neutrality (NN) arena in Norway which is >perhaps important to discuss here, and is >certainly important in terms of the proposed >workshop by IGC on NN. > >As pointed out in the IGP's posting here, a wide >range of stakeholders in Norway have agreed to a >set of principles of Network Neutrality. A very >good example that , unlike what many opined on >this list, it is possible to agree to a >workable set of NN principles. See >http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/norway-gets-voluntary-net-neutrality.ars   >. >Also see the actual set of NN principles, a >link to which is given in this news item. > >Since Internet is principally a global network, >it should be obvious that we should also explore >the possibility of a global consensus on NN >principles.... It certainly looks possible if >private sector, civil society and public sector >actors can agree to one set in Norway. > >Accordingly, it will be better if we call our >proposed workshop a bit more positively as >'Network Neutrality - Exploring a global >consensus'. Who knows this issue could mature to >become the subject of a round table in IGF-5, >something which we should aim at. > >Parminder > > >Milton L Mueller wrote: >>Yes, yes, yes. I like that formulation. Would >>love to be on such a panel. This must be "agree >>with Parminder Day." >> >>Milton Mueller >>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >>------------------------------ >>Internet Governance Project: >>http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> In fact so interesting, that I think we should have a workshop on >> this issue alone. 'NN - What is the GLOBAL angle on it'. In any >> case it is always better to have more focussed issues for workshops. >> >> I do often wonder that if US, or US plus EU, decide that >> such-and-such NN regulation is necessary to be observed by the >> concerned actors, would that not set the default global regime for >> NN. Do developing countries - even a relatively larger and more >> powerful one like India - have any serious options but to accept >> the default regime. >> >> What NN issues extend across the global Internet, or are likely to >> so extend? What accordingly are NN issues that are best dealt by a >> globally democratic system - and if there isnt one at present, the >> problems that such a situation presents. >> >> Discussing NN in terms of global Internet policy will be in >> accordance of the central mandate of the IGF as a policy dialogue >> forum for global Internet policy issues. parminder >> > > > > >There has been an interesting development in the >Network Neutrality (NN) arena in Norway which is >perhaps important to discuss here, and is >certainly important in terms of the proposed >workshop by IGC on NN. > >As pointed out in the IGP's posting here, a wide >range of stakeholders in Norway have agreed to a >set of principles of Network Neutrality. A very >good example that , unlike what many opined on >this list, it is possible to agree to a >workable set of NN principles. See  >http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/norway-gets-voluntary-net-neutrality.ars   >. Also see the actual set of NN principles, >a link to which is given in this news item. > >Since Internet is principally a global network, >it should be obvious that we should also explore >the possibility of a global consensus on NN >principles.... It certainly looks possible if >private sector, civil society and public sector >actors can agree to one set in Norway. > >Accordingly, it will be better if we call our >proposed workshop a bit more positively as >'Network Neutrality - Exploring a global >consensus'. Who knows this issue could mature to >become the subject of a round table in IGF-5, >something which we should aim at. > >Parminder > > >Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>Yes, yes, yes. I like that formulation. Would >>love to be on such a panel. This must be "agree >>with Parminder Day." >> >>Milton Mueller >>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >>------------------------------ >>Internet Governance Project: >>http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> >>In fact so interesting, that I think we should >>have a workshop on this issue alone. 'NN - What >>is the GLOBAL angle on it'. In any case it is >>always better to have more focussed issues for >>workshops. >> >>I do often wonder that if US, or US plus EU, >>decide that such-and-such NN regulation is >>necessary to be observed by the concerned >>actors, would that not set the default global >>regime for NN. Do developing countries - even a >>relatively larger and more powerful one like >>India - have any serious options but to accept >>the default regime. >> >>What NN issues extend across the global >>Internet, or are likely to so extend? What >>accordingly are NN issues that are best dealt >>by a globally democratic system - and if there >>isnt one at present, the problems that such a >>situation presents. >> >>Discussing NN in terms of global Internet >>policy will be in accordance of the central >>mandate of the IGF as a policy dialogue forum >>for global Internet policy issues. parminder >> > > > > >All >Apple >Business >Gadgets >Gaming >Hardware >Microsoft >Open Source >Science >Tech Policy >More >Media >Software >Security >Staff >Telecom >Web >News >Guides >Reviews >Customize >Choose site theme: > >White Black >Choose body font: > >Arial Helvetica >OpenForum >Login/Join > >Law & Disorder : Ars covers the world of tech policy > >Norway gets net neutrality‹voluntary, but broadly supported > >Norway's Post and Telecommunications Authority >has overseen a working group of ISPs and >consumer organization that has hashed out a set >of network neutrality principles for the >country. Though voluntary, they already appear >to command broad support. > >By >Nate >Anderson | Last updated February 25, 2009 12:12 >PM CT > >Text Size >Print this article >Leave >a comment > >"Nettnøytralitet" is coming to Norway. Several >ISPs, the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications >Authority, the Nowegian Cable TV Association, >and consumer groups have all signed on today to >a >new >document (PDF) outlining network neutrality >principles. Internet users are entitled to a >connection with "predefined capacity and >quality," and they can access content without >discrimination based on the sending or receiving >address. But there are some terrific caveats. > >Thomas Nortvedt heads the Norwegian Consumer >Council. Although outright Internet >discrimination has been largely unknown in >Norway, Nortvedt says that it's important to act >anyway as ISPs increasingly become content >providers, and conflicts of interest loom. > > >Thomas Nortvedt > >"With Internet service providers offering their >own content and services in competition with >other content providers, it is very important to >have a set of basic rules that ensure equal >access and quality of service," he said in a >statement supporting the new principles. "We >cannot risk getting into a situation where >Internet service providers give priority to >their own IP telephony or IPTV services, say, >making it difficult for other content providers >to offer an equivalent, high quality service." > >The new rules lay out three guidelines. First, >Internet users must be given complete and >accurate information about the service they are >buying, including capacity and quality. Second, >users are allowed to send and receive content of >their choice, use services and applications of >their choice. and connect any hardware and >software that doesn't harm the network. Finally, >the connection cannot be discriminated against >based on application, service, content, sender, >or receiver. > >Within those guidelines, though, ISPs still >retain tremendous freedom to act as they choose. >The second principle, for instance sounds more >than a bit like the FCC's current Internet >policy statement, and it should‹it was adapted >from the FCC principles. Like the FCC >principles, the right to freely use a connection >is limited to legal uses, so it does not >preclude ISPs from blocking access some P2P >file-sharing or all child pornography. In the >US, this has already lead ISPs to suggest that >even intrusive deep packet inspection of user >traffic would be acceptable, so long as the goal >was rooting out such illegal uses. > >Principle three prohibits traffic discrimination >in general, but does allow "traffic management >efforts on an operator¹s own network to block >activities that harm the network, comply with >orders from the authorities, ensure the quality >of service for specific applications that >require this, deal with special situations of >temporary network overload or prioritize traffic >on an individual user¹s connection according to >the user¹s wishes." > >That's a pretty tremendous list of exceptions, >though it comes with safeguards. While traffic >like VoIP and streaming video can be >prioritized, it does not appear that other >traffic such as legal P2P downloads can actively >be slowed (prioritizing other traffic may have >this effect, however). The guidelines also say >that when network management due to congestion >is necessary, it should be done without regard >to users of the services they are currently >accessing. > >The guiding idea here is that, as Nortvedt puts >it, "It must be up to individual broadband >customers to decide how to use their bandwidth." > >Willy Jensen, the Director General of the >Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority, >noted that ISPs were supportive of this basic >principle. "Everyone who endorses these >guidelines has made it clear that they support >an open Internet on which different providers >can compete freely to offer content and >services," he said. "Internet users need to be >assured that the Internet service provider they >have chosen will not act as a gatekeeper for >their Internet use." > >Click >here to view comments on this article. > >Loading Comments: > > >Your comment: > > > >You need to login before you can comment. >Login >to your account here. Once you're set up, just >refresh this page. > >Having >issues staying logged in? > >You might have an old, bad version of our >cookies. Try >clearing >cookies for the following domains, and then >login at the link above: civis.arstechnica.com, >episteme.arstechnica, and .arstechnica.com. >Getting >logged out a lot and it's really annoying? > >Could you please take 30 seconds and >fill >out this form to let us know a little more >information about the problem you've been having? > >Share this story. > >Prev >Story >Next >Story >Hot stories on Ars > > >Law & Disorder >Time >Warner Cable: Please complain about our usage >caps! > >Law & Disorder >The >Internet asks Obama for pot > >Read more from Ars > >Most popular >Ars journals >01 >New >$1.29 iTunes tracks provide an opening for >competition >02 >Red >Hat CEO praises Obama openness, calls for ODF >adoption >03 >Healthcare >records: Google gets pharmacies, MS hospitals >04 >Canadian >Privacy Commissioner launches DPI website >05 >Prepare >for ludicrous speed: Ars reviews the 8-core Mac >Pro >06 >Brütal >Legend brings a deep love of metal music to >gaming >07 >AP >launches campaign against Internet >"misappropriation" >08 >FriendFeed >lifestreaming goes real-time for better and worse >09 >AMD >details 2009 restructuring costs; may be more >pain ahead >10 >Google >loses on appeal, will face AdWords trademark suit >11 >Report: >Sony, YouTube in talks to license films > >DS >Puzzle Round-up: Henry Hatsworth and Docomodake >BOING >VideoLAN >looking for help from experienced Mac OS X devs >Konami >to publish shooter set in Iraq War >Godfather >2 press kit includes surprise: brass knuckles >New >biologically active compounds from cannabis >Microsoft's >second attack: Macs are just about aesthetics >Apple >introduces new Xserve with Nehalem CPUs >Apple >could be looking to add a camera to the iPod >touch >Report: >Apple doubling iPhone production ahead of launch >iTunes >8.1.1 enables HD rental support plus bug fixes >Cocoa >dev: Design your own Xcode project templates >Man >builds his own bargain-basement Pip-Boy 3000 >No >"new" DSiWare games, but Equilibrio comes to >WiiWare >San >Diego science festival: expo day at the park >Apple >keeps SD rental hits coming with nearly 300 new >titles > >Digging for buried treasure: >Ars reviews iPhone apps > > >Visit >the Ars Technica one stop shop for all things >virtualization > >Jobs.Ars > >Lead PHP Developer at SSB BART Group >San Francisco, CA >Software >Build Engineer at frog design inc. >San Francisco >Infrastructure >Programmer at Hudson River Trading >New York >iPhone >App Developer at Advertising Agency >Los Angeles > >More Job Listings > >Sponsored Resources > >Whitepapers: > >4 >Key Steps to Automate IT Security Compliance >The >Handbook of Application Delivery: Everything You >Wanted to Know but Didn't Know You Needed to Ask >eBook: >Vulnerability Management for Dummies >Rapid >E-Learning: Maturing Technology Brings Balance >and Possibilities >(These whitepapers will open in a new window.) > >Serving the technologist for 1 x 10-1 centuries > >About Us >Advertise with us >Ars Promotions >Awards >Contact Us >General FAQ >Press Contacts >Press Information >Privacy Policy >Reprints >RSS Feeds >Staff Bios >Twitter >User Agreement > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Apr 8 14:55:11 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:55:11 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: <49DC4892.80204@itforchange.net> References: <49DB3C1B.5040600@itforchange.net> <49DC4892.80204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes, I understand that internet rights and principles has been suggested as a meeting theme and now is not even a session theme. I ignore in which way, if at all, it has been taken into consideration. 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: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. April 2009 08:48 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper Which point are you referring to, Wolfgang? Does your message mean that you agree we should draft and submit a brief statement based on earlier IGC submissions? Anja wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at wrote: May I strongly support Ian Peter's point. Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 Von: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. April 2009 13:42 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper Thank you for drawing attention to this again, Ian. You are probably right that it will difficult to formulate a comprehensive IGF response at this late point in time. However, what would be possible, and important, is to express our collective regret that Internet Rights and Principles has not made it as the overarching theme of the forthcoming IGF, and this despite widespread support for this proposal. The MAG should be requested to heed this call and reconsider its decision. Anja Ian Peter wrote: Just a reminder that comments on the Progam Paper need to be submitted by April 13. We will not have time for an IGC response, but members may like to comment individually. Details are at www.intgovforum.org Here are some comments I submitted as an individual FYI. 1. I am surprised that Internet Rights and Principles is not a session theme, given the strong support it gained from all stakeholder groups during the Open Consultations. I am also surprised at the objection apparently raised during MAG, given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) My suggestion is that a good theme for the meeting would be "Internet for All - Rights and Principles". This language meets both major proposals which have been put forward. 2. I am surprised to see Emerging Issues dropped. While agreeing that the sessions at Rio and Hyderabad on this subject were less than optimal, I think this is largely because we have not clearly defined what his session should achieve and how we should go about making the session effective. Emerging Issues should not be about issues emerging during the conference. It should be taking a longer term view of the issues that will arise in Internet Governance. An IGF that doesn't look past the immediate issues on its agenda is one that has little choice but to be a reactive body discussing only the status quo, in a media environment where change is rapid. Today's Internet is nothing like the Internet of 20 years ago - and the Internet 20 years hence will again be vastly different. If IGF is not able to look at longer term issues and take them into account it will largely weaken its capacity to be effective. Ian Peter -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Senior Research Associate IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 www.ITforChange.net www.IS-Watch.net http://India.IS-Watch.net -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Senior Research Associate IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 www.ITforChange.net www.IS-Watch.net http://India.IS-Watch.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 8 16:05:34 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 06:05:34 +1000 Subject: AW: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: <49DC4892.80204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6E4FB158204E4C9FA0C7EC3BB1CE98AA@IAN> Hi Anja, Unless there are objections, I will make an IGC submission using the wording of the previously approved statement only. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at itforchange.net] Sent: 08 April 2009 16:48 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper Which point are you referring to, Wolfgang? Does your message mean that you agree we should draft and submit a brief statement based on earlier IGC submissions? Anja wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at wrote: May I strongly support Ian Peter's point. Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 Von: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. April 2009 13:42 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper Thank you for drawing attention to this again, Ian. You are probably right that it will difficult to formulate a comprehensive IGF response at this late point in time. However, what would be possible, and important, is to express our collective regret that Internet Rights and Principles has not made it as the overarching theme of the forthcoming IGF, and this despite widespread support for this proposal. The MAG should be requested to heed this call and reconsider its decision. Anja Ian Peter wrote: Just a reminder that comments on the Progam Paper need to be submitted by April 13. We will not have time for an IGC response, but members may like to comment individually. Details are at www.intgovforum.org Here are some comments I submitted as an individual FYI. 1. I am surprised that Internet Rights and Principles is not a session theme, given the strong support it gained from all stakeholder groups during the Open Consultations. I am also surprised at the objection apparently raised during MAG, given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) My suggestion is that a good theme for the meeting would be "Internet for All - Rights and Principles". This language meets both major proposals which have been put forward. 2. I am surprised to see Emerging Issues dropped. While agreeing that the sessions at Rio and Hyderabad on this subject were less than optimal, I think this is largely because we have not clearly defined what his session should achieve and how we should go about making the session effective. Emerging Issues should not be about issues emerging during the conference. It should be taking a longer term view of the issues that will arise in Internet Governance. An IGF that doesn't look past the immediate issues on its agenda is one that has little choice but to be a reactive body discussing only the status quo, in a media environment where change is rapid. Today's Internet is nothing like the Internet of 20 years ago - and the Internet 20 years hence will again be vastly different. If IGF is not able to look at longer term issues and take them into account it will largely weaken its capacity to be effective. Ian Peter -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Senior Research Associate IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 www.ITforChange.net www.IS-Watch.net http://India.IS-Watch.net -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Senior Research Associate IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 www.ITforChange.net www.IS-Watch.net http://India.IS-Watch.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Apr 8 18:31:12 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 00:31:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF Message-ID: <3964EF33AF0D49EEB96F02AF7BA9431B@PCbureau> For your information ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance ; Caucus Europe Cc: Catherine Trautmann Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:42 PM Subject: Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF Dear all The above event announcement that was sent yesterday raises some serious concerns in my opinion. The European IGF is pending since January 2008 when it was announced and unanimously adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg (see my report on this session sent to the euc list). Since nothing happened in the meantime, EuroDig -launched by some of our colleagues with the strong support of the Council of Europe in October 2008- questioned the two MEPs attending the meeting about the urgent necessity for -at last- setting up this European IGF as proposed by the final documents of the WSIS (i.e. multistakeholder based and open to CS). Both Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour gave their strong support to that. The "hearing" in Brussels mentioned below is likely to be the response of the EU Commission to our concerns. However it is very far from the European CS expectations for a couple of reasons, and therefore unacceptable for us. Among these reasons : First : It is published just one week before the meeting, thus placing CS organisations concerned before a "fait accompli", and therefore unable to prepare the meeting and coordinate different organisations for a fruitful participation. Second : There won't be any representative of the European CS in the discussion panels. In fact, these are organised "around" private sector speakers. Patrik Faltstrom who is alternatively a manager at Cisco, a representative of the Swedish government or a NGO member (as chair or something like of a Swedish ICT users organisation), depending on the nature of the meeting, definitely isn't a CS representative ! Third : Restricting the role of the European CS, who is engaged in the WSIS process since its very beginning, to just being a possible single answerer to the EC or EP selected questions during a couple of minutes, is an obvious sign of contempt for all of its organisations and members. Moreover, this attitude of the Commission (with or without the EP's support) strongly infringes the framework and the procedures based on multistakeholder principles edicted by the WSIS and agreed on by all European governments in Tunis. At last, I'd kindly ask our politicians in Brussels to draw their inspiration from the sub-regional African IGFs which are organized and are working as asked for by the WSIS. I suggest them to ask their African counterparts for some advice and help. In the framework of the EU-ACP Agreement for instance. For all these reasons, I strongly ask EU CS to boycott such a meeting. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT Focal person to the EP of the European CS accredited to the WSIS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vanda at uol.com.br Thu Apr 9 11:34:08 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:34:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] HAPPY EASTER/PESSACH to all of you and families + lots of chocolate! In-Reply-To: References: <4BE0560213204B3B850557D1D254B6DE@GINGERLAPTOP> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7149619F0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <202A3175815F472586128755F977DD0C@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <01af01c9b928$b0046c00$100d4400$@com.br> Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: Marilia Maciel [mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] General Workshop Proposal procedure (response to Dear Milton and all, I understand your concern and I have to confess that it also makes me feel unsecure to leave such a wide margin of decision on the hands of the MAG. On the other hand, there was a negative aspect on the model that was in place until last year, regarding the organization of the workshops, in my opinion. If the free arrangements between workshop proposers allowed people with the same frame of mind to get together, it also lacked transparency and openness. It allowed pals to define a workshop proposal and make it public when everything was agreed, no other organizer could be included (with real space) and no important adjustment to the main theme could be made. I believe it´s good to start this debate early and carry it publicly. But I also agree that we should follow this process closely, and don´t leave it all to MAG. This should be seriously debated and I am glad that you mentioned it. Best regards, Marília On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Milton and all, Definitely an important point here, Milton. However, as I understand it, at this point we are not putting any real “work” or commitment into the workshop proposal, but brainstorming basic ideas. Interested groups would continue/commit with the process after the next step by the Secretariat. For the moment, it is quite an informal proposition, as I see it, to measure the amount of interest and to facilitate groupings before much energy is invested in the workshop design and planning. I think this is better than developing a full workshop proposal only to be told that workshops will be combined/not approved. It also allows for suggestions/support for workshops by people who are not interested in organizing them, but in attending them. Personally, I see this as an opportunity to ask for someone else to organize a workshop that I see as necessary to help me and the IG situation. Thanks for bringing this up. We should be clear on this. I see the IGC role at this point as requesting/supporting certain workshops, not committing to developing them. Any other ideas on this? gp The template on the IGF page is: 1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words) 2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200 words) 3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes (Critical Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or under the cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)? If so which one? (Please select the most appropriate one.) 4. Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the link to the report. 5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself? 1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? 2. If not, who do you think should organize it? Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu _____ De: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Enviado el: Lunes, 23 de Marzo de 2009 09:56 a.m. Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Asunto: RE: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation Ginger, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the workshop discussions and of compiling the responses. Thanks for that. My problem at this stage is that I (and, I suspect, many others) are basically frozen in place by Bertrand's suggestion (statement?) that the method of workshop planning and development will be completely different this year. I am surprised that there has been no response to my expressed concerns about this, and until there is some clarification or discussion of those basic parameters, I think it is unwise to invest time in developing workshops. Indeed, I am not even sure I would plan to attend the IGF if certain worst-case scenarios play out. We have been told, in effect, "don't develop a detailed, coherent program for a workshop and don't line up any people, because whatever idea you have is going to be treated as a general "theme" and then thrown into a huge pot and re-sorted into MAG-defined groups." And those groups may be a bunch of people who hardly know each other with different, sometimes conflicting agendas. If I am not correctly apprehending the meaning of those changes please correct me. In the meantime, I await an appropriate response. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org _____ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Workshop on Remote Participation Please post your interest and ideas concerning this workshop on this thread. Remote Participation from both the policy (inclusion) and application (practical) perspectives (Ginger) Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 9 16:37:41 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:37:41 +0200 Subject: Fw: [governance] Fw: Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF Message-ID: <28DE340B0C9C4FF8B1734BD5758E2116@PCbureau> Sorry , I missed the programme of the Public hearing. Here it is PUBLIC HEARING "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" European Parliament Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16.00 - 18.30 ROOM: ASP 3G3 Interpretation available: FR, DE, EN, ES Programme 16.00 - 16.10 Welcome Speech by Gunnar Hökmark, MEP 1st Panel chaired by Catherine Trautmann, Vice-President ITRE Committee 16.10 - 16.20 Torbjørn Frøysnes Director of the Liaison Office of the Council of Europe with European Institutions and Special Representative of the Secretary General 16.20 - 16.30 Martin Boyle Senior Policy Advisor, Nominet 16.30 - 16.40 Eugenio Triana International Management Consultant on telecom policy, space and satellite systems, copyright and intellectual property rights (ICANN Initial Board of Directors) 16.40 - 17.10 Q&A and discussion 2nd Panel chaired by Pilar Del Castillo Vera, MEP 17.15 - 17.25 Patrik Fältström Member of the board of Swedish Networks User Society 17.25 - 17.35 Christopher Wilkinson ISOC-ECC Board Members, European Chapters Coordinating Council, ISOC-Belgium-Wallonie 17.35 - 17.45 Nicklas Lundblad European Policy Manager, Google 17.45 - 18.15 Q&A and discussion 18.15 - 18.30 Conclusions Catherine Trautmann Vice-President ITRE Committee ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:31 AM Subject: [governance] Fw: Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF For your information ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance ; Caucus Europe Cc: Catherine Trautmann Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:42 PM Subject: Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF Dear all The above event announcement that was sent yesterday raises some serious concerns in my opinion. The European IGF is pending since January 2008 when it was announced and unanimously adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg (see my report on this session sent to the euc list). Since nothing happened in the meantime, EuroDig -launched by some of our colleagues with the strong support of the Council of Europe in October 2008- questioned the two MEPs attending the meeting about the urgent necessity for -at last- setting up this European IGF as proposed by the final documents of the WSIS (i.e. multistakeholder based and open to CS). Both Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour gave their strong support to that. The "hearing" in Brussels mentioned below is likely to be the response of the EU Commission to our concerns. However it is very far from the European CS expectations for a couple of reasons, and therefore unacceptable for us. Among these reasons : First : It is published just one week before the meeting, thus placing CS organisations concerned before a "fait accompli", and therefore unable to prepare the meeting and coordinate different organisations for a fruitful participation. Second : There won't be any representative of the European CS in the discussion panels. In fact, these are organised "around" private sector speakers. Patrik Faltstrom who is alternatively a manager at Cisco, a representative of the Swedish government or a NGO member (as chair or something like of a Swedish ICT users organisation), depending on the nature of the meeting, definitely isn't a CS representative ! Third : Restricting the role of the European CS, who is engaged in the WSIS process since its very beginning, to just being a possible single answerer to the EC or EP selected questions during a couple of minutes, is an obvious sign of contempt for all of its organisations and members. Moreover, this attitude of the Commission (with or without the EP's support) strongly infringes the framework and the procedures based on multistakeholder principles edicted by the WSIS and agreed on by all European governments in Tunis. At last, I'd kindly ask our politicians in Brussels to draw their inspiration from the sub-regional African IGFs which are organized and are working as asked for by the WSIS. I suggest them to ask their African counterparts for some advice and help. In the framework of the EU-ACP Agreement for instance. For all these reasons, I strongly ask EU CS to boycott such a meeting. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT Focal person to the EP of the European CS accredited to the WSIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 10 16:33:40 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:33:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] ITU World Policy Forum Message-ID: There is the possibility for relevant stakeholders with "proven interest in the issues discussed at the World Telecom Policy Forum", including NGOs and individuals, to participate in this ITU-organized event in Lisbon. I know Bill Drake and Wolfgang Kleinwachter intend to go, but for others interested here are some details. Of course, this is not full participation (although the first day is an open High level panel open to all) and it's basically only the possibility to sit and listen. But nonetheless, it would certainly be useful to have members of the IGC list to try and seize this opportunity opened by the ITU. Some of the issues discussed there are closely related to the Internet Governance framework and its evolution (ie : ICANN and the role of ITU in Internet-related matters). The information about the WTPF is accessible here : http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/index.html The registration page is there and gives information on the specific procedure for individuals : http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/registration.html And the corresponding questionnaire is there : http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/documents/expression-of-interest.pd f The issues discussed and the documents that will be examined include the Secretary General's report and draft opinions that will be adopted by the Forum. You can find them at the following address : http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/ieg.html Of particular interest is the draft opinion 1 on that page. The WTPF will take place from April 21 to 24 in Lisbon. As the admission of individuals is on a first come-first serve basis, maybe the number of seats allocated is already exhausted. 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Fri Apr 10 16:44:58 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:44:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] European IGF meeting Message-ID: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" is ! This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical remarks. PUBLIC HEARING "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" European Parliament Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16.00 - 18.30 ROOM: ASP 3G3 I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the above. Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and prepare it seriously. European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and facilitated by the Council of Europe held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pouzin at well.com Fri Apr 10 17:53:07 2009 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:53:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> Message-ID: <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels No point looking for a place in Strasbourg For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. It is "irrelevant". - - - On 4/10/09, jlfullsack wrote: > Dear all > > At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" is ! This adds lack > of preparation to my previous critical remarks. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Apr 10 19:01:23 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:01:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.co m> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090410230125.5173468D15@smtp1.electricembers.net> At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >No point looking for a place in Strasbourg > >For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >It is "irrelevant". Dans le principe, OK. Il est même aggressif (Google, ISOC, e-commerce UK, le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). Mais, nous n'avons peut-être pas à nous mettre à mal avec le PS (au moment de l'Hadopi) où Trauttmann fait-là ce qu'elle peut dans l'urgence pour que l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a travaillé sur sa motion de l'année passée ? jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sat Apr 11 02:27:37 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:27:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5C15962E505F43A99B52148248D24571@PCbureau> Thank you, Louis for your support. We, citizens of Europe and members of the European CS, cannot participate to that kind of "Private (sector) hearing" under the auspices of the European Parliament (EP) and the European Commission. Moreover, such an event, just some weeks before the polls of the new EP, isn't encouraging the Europeans for their participion. Friendly Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Pouzin" To: "WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance" Cc: "Caucus Europe" ; Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:53 PM Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels > No point looking for a place in Strasbourg > > For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. > It is "irrelevant". > - - - > > On 4/10/09, jlfullsack wrote: >> Dear all >> >> At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" is ! This adds >> lack >> of preparation to my previous critical remarks. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sat Apr 11 02:46:53 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:46:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> <20090410230125.5173468D15@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Bonjour Jean-François et tous Je ne préconise pas le boycott de cette réunion à cause de Catherine Trautmann que je connais et apprécie pour son engagement en d'autres circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de principe : celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi "égalitaire" que possible à la SC européenne. Bref, je demande à NOS élus, de respecter ce que NOS gouvernements ont signé à Genève et à Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout entier doit en être conscient. Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et écrit dans mon compte-rendu -envoyé à Catherine Trautmann et à Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir réellement à la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Européen. C'est un prérequis. La réunion annoncée est comme une fin de non-recevoir à cette demande. Il y a un moment où il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" car les règles du jeu sont trop pipées. Ce moment est là : il faut le saisir et espérer que nos élus en tirent -enfin!- les conséquences. Pour qu'un véritable FGI-Européen multi-partenarial se mette -enfin !- en place. Amicalement Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "JFC Morfin" To: ; "Louis Pouzin" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >> >>For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>It is "irrelevant". > > Dans le principe, OK. Il est même aggressif (Google, ISOC, e-commerce UK, > le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). > Mais, nous n'avons peut-être pas à nous mettre à mal avec le PS (au moment > de l'Hadopi) où Trauttmann fait-là ce qu'elle peut dans l'urgence pour que > l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a travaillé sur sa motion > de l'année passée ? > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Apr 11 10:33:47 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:33:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: European IGF meeting: what legal solution? In-Reply-To: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: Jean-Louis et tous Je soutiens entièrement ton analyse et les conclusions que tu en tires. Le problème, c'est que le Parlement continue à faire ses affaires de manière parlementaire, et il n'a pas pour mission et validation d'être une plateforme multi-partenaire. Quand il le fait, c'est de manière peu crédible qui n'est pas de nature à inspirer la confiance, surtout du côté de la société civile. La fausse consultation de la semaine prochaine est caractéristique... Il faut donc trouver une autre entité qui sache mieux jouer ce rôle. C'est ce que j'avais dit à EuroDig, en proposant un tandem Conseil de l'Europe + Parlement, comme solution a minima mais relevant d'une logique européenne viable. Le Parlement semble vouloir jouer cavalier seul, avec quelques lobbies en soutien. Cependant, l'avantage du Parlement, c'est qu'il peut légiférer, ce qui est intéressant pour ceux d'entre nous qui pensent que l'IGF ne va pas assez loin et devrait pouvoir être accompagné d'un processus de recommandations... A ce stade, je crois qu'il faut trouver une solution juridique et/ou diplomatique, qui permette la mise en place relativement pérenne d'une plateforme multi-partenaire de confiance. Pour le faire, comme toi Jean-Louis, je pense qu'il faut se réclamer du processus légitime du SMSI et réclamer auprès de nos elus qu'ils en respectent les engagements de mise en oeuvre... Qui connaissons-nous, du côté juridique, qui puisse nous proposer une stratégie viable? Qui pourrait aller à la réunion de la semaine prochaine pour dire que c'est ce que nous voulons? Amitiés Divina Frau-Meigs Divina Frau-Meigs Professeur, sociologue des médias, Université Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris (FR) Directrice, master pro "ingénierie de la formation à distance et de l'éducation aux médias" Membre du Bureau d'ECREA -European Communication Research and Education Asso Ex-Vice-présidente de l'AIERI -Asso Intl Etudes et Recherches en Infocom- www.medias-matrices.net Le 11/04/09 8:46, « jlfullsack » a écrit : > > Bonjour Jean-François et tous > > Je ne préconise pas le boycott de cette réunion à cause de Catherine > Trautmann que je connais et apprécie pour son engagement en d'autres > circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de principe : > celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi "égalitaire" que > possible à la SC européenne. Bref, je demande à NOS élus, de respecter ce > que NOS gouvernements ont signé à Genève et à Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout > entier doit en être conscient. > > Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et écrit dans mon compte-rendu -envoyé à > Catherine Trautmann et à Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir réellement > à la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Européen. C'est un > prérequis. La réunion annoncée est comme une fin de non-recevoir à cette > demande. > > Il y a un moment où il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" car les > règles du jeu sont trop pipées. Ce moment est là : il faut le saisir et > espérer que nos élus en tirent -enfin!- les conséquences. Pour qu'un > véritable FGI-Européen multi-partenarial se mette -enfin !- en place. > > Amicalement > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JFC Morfin" > To: ; "Louis Pouzin" > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > >> >> At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>> One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>> No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >>> >>> For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>> It is "irrelevant". >> >> Dans le principe, OK. Il est même aggressif (Google, ISOC, e-commerce UK, >> le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). >> Mais, nous n'avons peut-être pas à nous mettre à mal avec le PS (au moment >> de l'Hadopi) où Trauttmann fait-là ce qu'elle peut dans l'urgence pour que >> l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a travaillé sur sa motion >> de l'année passée ? >> jfc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-EUC mailing list > WSIS-EUC at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-euc > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Apr 11 12:13:53 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:13:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> <20090410230125.5173468D15@smtp1.electricembers.net> <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: <20090411161401.4EEA367846@smtp1.electricembers.net> Je comprends. Si c'est clair avec Trauttman et le PS qui peut solidement aider pour la Hadopi, je n'ai pas de problème. france at large a clairement expliqué à certains des intervenants que nous avons au contact dans l'affaire de l'effort IETF/Google de simplification des IDN par la dénaturation du français, pourquoi nous ne serons pas à Bruxelles. Juste une remarque. Le Parlement Européen est un acteur intéressant, mais pas un acteur nécessaire, pour le lancement de l'euro-FGI. Vu le calendrier, je pense que les élections européennes sont une opportunité pour les citoyens d'Europe de porter les sujets ayant trait à l'Internet, et en particulier la constitution de l'Internet inscrite dans le code source sans le contrôle de nos élus (et en fait de quiconque), mais ayant progressivement un impact aussi grand que Lisbonne sur notre vie quotidienne. L'internet et sa part dans la sortie de crise est sans nul doute un enjeu clé de ces élections dans la réalité (cf. le vote sur la régression punitive), il doit aussi l'être dans le débat. Je caresse l'idée de lancer une liste "citoyens at euro-fgi.eu" qui permettrait à chaque liste en présence de présenter ses positions, et d'installer sur le site un Wiki pour les documenter et tenir à jour au fur et à mesure du débat (mais j'ai des problèmes de charge machine possible). Note, que je ne prends là aucune autre position que la nécessité d'un forum citoyen sur LE sujet concret qui réunit les Européens au quotidien en les mettant aussi sous la tutelle commerciale, technique et politique de choix qui ne sont pas forcément les leurs. jfc At 08:46 11/04/2009, jlfullsack wrote: >Bonjour Jean-François et tous > >Je ne préconise pas le boycott de cette réunion à cause de Catherine >Trautmann que je connais et apprécie pour son engagement en d'autres >circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de >principe : celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi >"égalitaire" que possible à la SC européenne. Bref, je demande à NOS >élus, de respecter ce que NOS gouvernements ont signé à Genève et à >Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout entier doit en être conscient. > >Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et écrit dans mon compte-rendu -envoyé à >Catherine Trautmann et à Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir >réellement à la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Européen. >C'est un prérequis. La réunion annoncée est comme une fin de >non-recevoir à cette demande. > >Il y a un moment où il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" >car les règles du jeu sont trop pipées. Ce moment est là : il faut >le saisir et espérer que nos élus en tirent -enfin!- les >conséquences. Pour qu'un véritable FGI-Européen multi-partenarial se >mette -enfin !- en place. > >Amicalement >Jean-Louis Fullsack > >----- Original Message ----- From: "JFC Morfin" >To: ; "Louis Pouzin" >Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM >Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > >> >>At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>>One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>>No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >>> >>>For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>>It is "irrelevant". >> >>Dans le principe, OK. Il est même aggressif (Google, ISOC, >>e-commerce UK, le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). >>Mais, nous n'avons peut-être pas à nous mettre à mal avec le PS (au >>moment de l'Hadopi) où Trauttmann fait-là ce qu'elle peut dans >>l'urgence pour que l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a >>travaillé sur sa motion de l'année passée ? >>jfc >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Apr 11 12:51:37 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:51:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: European IGF meeting: what legal solution? In-Reply-To: References: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: <20090411165149.C5FDA67C0B@smtp1.electricembers.net> At 16:33 11/04/2009, Divina MEIGS wrote: >Pour le faire, comme toi Jean-Louis, je pense qu'il faut se réclamer >du processus légitime du SMSI et réclamer auprès de nos elus qu'ils >en respectent les engagements de mise en oeuvre... Divina, le processus légitime du SMSI est la légitimité reconnue à chacun. En terme d'Internet personne n'est plus égal que l'autre (Etat, élu, entreprise, personne privée), sauf celui qui peut changer l'internet - par la loi, l'argent, la technique, l'adhésion de l'usage (ce qu'en terminologie Internet on appelle les "@larges"). Nous le voyons dans le cas de la Hadaopi qui devient une absurdité technico-démocratique en raison de la suppériorité de compétence technique des légiférés sur celle des légiférants. Nous ne voulons pas que le Parlement vote des lois en soi. Nous voulons que le Parlement nous représente et pour cela nous écoute. C'est le but du Forum de servir d'interface où qui a à dire et qui à écouter peut librement participer, sous la pression de qui peut pratiquement forcer les choses. Jusqu'à présent cette pression était celle des lobbys et de la rue. Elle est maintenant aussi celle d'interlocuteurs structurellement incontournables que sont les "utilisateurs pilotes", c'est à dire ceux qui peuvent à tout moment non pas contourner la loi, mais la rendre obsolète en changeant les paramètres pratiques de la donne. L'euro-FGI est précisément le lieu où les Etats, instances, société civiles et secteur privés peuvent informellement "négocier" avec ce nouveau type d'interlocuteurs. Si leur futurs partenaires ne prennent pas l'initiative du Forum commun (comme en France où la Hadopi aurait du résulter d'une concertation au sein du FGI-FR) il convient que cela soit ces interlocuteurs qui la prenne. C'est pourquoi france at large, la plus ancienne association au services des utilisateurs pilotes, a pris dans les limites de ses modestes moyens, l'inititative des sites (et la structure d'accompagnement pour la France) FGI-FR et euro-FGI qu'elle apporte et met à la disposition de tous. Cordialement. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sat Apr 11 10:57:48 2009 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:57:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> (jlfullsack@wanadoo.fr's message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:44:58 +0200") References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> Message-ID: <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> >>>>> "jlfullsack" == jlfullsack writes: > Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" > is ! "Room ASP 3G3" means "Room 3G3" in the "Altiero Spinelli" building, which is a part of the overall complex of the European Parliament in Bruxelles. If you enter in the "Spinelli" building you can find signs directing you to such room. Also, as far as I can see this hearing has been organised by the European Parliament, without the involvement of the European Commission (unlike what I think I understood from your previous email on this same subject). Best, Andrea Glorioso > This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical > remarks. > PUBLIC HEARING > "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" > European Parliament > Wednesday, 15 April 2009 > 16.00 - 18.30 > ROOM: ASP 3G3 > I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. > The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be > more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the > above. > Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and > prepare it seriously. > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents > EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 > co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications > (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and > facilitated by the Council of Europe > held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, > CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland > more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx > All the best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance <#secure > method=pgpmime mode=sign> -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 11 14:30:20 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:30:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] deadline for workshop proposals extended to 21 April Message-ID: New on the IGF site, the deadline for workshop proposals has been extended to 21 April 2009. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 11 15:54:45 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:54:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My understanding of the EP Hearing that it is a consequence of the EP Resolution on the IGF from January 1997. The rersolution says that a European IGF should be held in the 1st quarter of 2009. So that EP was obliged to do something before the election. April is already late. I do not see a contradiction between the Hearing and EURODIG. In contrary it gives the whole process more visibility and continuity. This will be a win-win. There was another EP/ITRE Hearing in November 2008 in Strasbourg also with Madame Trautmann. Here we discussed, inter alia, the relationship between EP and EURODIG and we came to the conlusion that the best solution is to see EURODIG as a process with various events (national and sub-regional) in between and one big all-European event which is EURODIG II in Geneva in September this year. It is nonsense to create an artificial conflict between the 27 member states of the EU/EP and the 48 member states of the COE. We all know that Europe is bigger than the 27 but we also know that EURODIG has to embrace the Commission and the Parliament (and the council) otherwise it would weaken itself and would not be taken seriously as THE regional European IG event. Lets work hand in hand and concentrate more on substance than on procedures. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Andrea Glorioso [mailto:andrea at digitalpolicy.it] Gesendet: Sa 11.04.2009 16:57 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: jlfullsack; WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance; Caucus Europe Betreff: Re: [governance] European IGF meeting >>>>> "jlfullsack" == jlfullsack writes: > Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" > is ! "Room ASP 3G3" means "Room 3G3" in the "Altiero Spinelli" building, which is a part of the overall complex of the European Parliament in Bruxelles. If you enter in the "Spinelli" building you can find signs directing you to such room. Also, as far as I can see this hearing has been organised by the European Parliament, without the involvement of the European Commission (unlike what I think I understood from your previous email on this same subject). Best, Andrea Glorioso > This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical > remarks. > PUBLIC HEARING > "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" > European Parliament > Wednesday, 15 April 2009 > 16.00 - 18.30 > ROOM: ASP 3G3 > I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. > The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be > more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the > above. > Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and > prepare it seriously. > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents > EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 > co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications > (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and > facilitated by the Council of Europe > held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, > CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland > more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx > All the best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance <#secure > method=pgpmime mode=sign> -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 11 16:09:54 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:09:54 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry the resolution was January 2008 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+B6-2008-0041+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN See paragraph 9 wolfgang ________________________________ Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Gesendet: Sa 11.04.2009 21:54 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Andrea Glorioso; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: jlfullsack; WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance; Caucus Europe Betreff: AW: [governance] European IGF meeting My understanding of the EP Hearing that it is a consequence of the EP Resolution on the IGF from January 1997. The rersolution says that a European IGF should be held in the 1st quarter of 2009. So that EP was obliged to do something before the election. April is already late. I do not see a contradiction between the Hearing and EURODIG. In contrary it gives the whole process more visibility and continuity. This will be a win-win. There was another EP/ITRE Hearing in November 2008 in Strasbourg also with Madame Trautmann. Here we discussed, inter alia, the relationship between EP and EURODIG and we came to the conlusion that the best solution is to see EURODIG as a process with various events (national and sub-regional) in between and one big all-European event which is EURODIG II in Geneva in September this year. It is nonsense to create an artificial conflict between the 27 member states of the EU/EP and the 48 member states of the COE. We all know that Europe is bigger than the 27 but we also know that EURODIG has to embrace the Commission and the Parliament (and the council) otherwise it would weaken itself and would not be taken seriously as THE regional European IG event. Lets work hand in hand and concentrate more on substance than on procedures. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Andrea Glorioso [mailto:andrea at digitalpolicy.it] Gesendet: Sa 11.04.2009 16:57 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: jlfullsack; WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance; Caucus Europe Betreff: Re: [governance] European IGF meeting >>>>> "jlfullsack" == jlfullsack writes: > Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" > is ! "Room ASP 3G3" means "Room 3G3" in the "Altiero Spinelli" building, which is a part of the overall complex of the European Parliament in Bruxelles. If you enter in the "Spinelli" building you can find signs directing you to such room. Also, as far as I can see this hearing has been organised by the European Parliament, without the involvement of the European Commission (unlike what I think I understood from your previous email on this same subject). Best, Andrea Glorioso > This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical > remarks. > PUBLIC HEARING > "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" > European Parliament > Wednesday, 15 April 2009 > 16.00 - 18.30 > ROOM: ASP 3G3 > I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. > The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be > more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the > above. > Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and > prepare it seriously. > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents > EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 > co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications > (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and > facilitated by the Council of Europe > held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, > CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland > more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx > All the best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance <#secure > method=pgpmime mode=sign> -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Apr 11 16:41:01 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:41:01 +0200 Subject: [Gov 649] Re: [governance] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm. uni-halle.de> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20090411204107.F044AA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> Wolfgang, we are in agreement on what you say. The disagreement is on the facts that: (1) on the EP side: we were not invited, while others we daily oppose or internationally opposed to (and are/were defeated according to the rules of the concerned arenas - meaning their representativeness is less established than our's) were invited in good order. (2) on the CS side: we tend to give too much importance to the regalian domain, forgetting the co-initiative capacity and duty of the civil society and lead users. The win^5 is if every of the regalian, civil, private, international and technical poles take the lead whenever they can, as the EP, Eurodig, france at large did. Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. jfc At 21:54 11/04/2009, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >My understanding of the EP Hearing that it is a consequence of the >EP Resolution on the IGF from January 1997. The rersolution says >that a European IGF should be held in the 1st quarter of 2009. So >that EP was obliged to do something before the election. April is >already late. > >I do not see a contradiction between the Hearing and EURODIG. In >contrary it gives the whole process more visibility and continuity. >This will be a win-win. There was another EP/ITRE Hearing in >November 2008 in Strasbourg also with Madame Trautmann. Here we >discussed, inter alia, the relationship between EP and EURODIG and >we came to the conlusion that the best solution is to see EURODIG as >a process with various events (national and sub-regional) in between >and one big all-European event which is EURODIG II in Geneva in >September this year. > >It is nonsense to create an artificial conflict between the 27 >member states of the EU/EP and the 48 member states of the COE. We >all know that Europe is bigger than the 27 but we also know that >EURODIG has to embrace the Commission and the Parliament (and the >council) otherwise it would weaken itself and would not be taken >seriously as THE regional European IG event. > >Lets work hand in hand and concentrate more on substance than on procedures. > >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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Apr 12 10:05:10 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:05:10 +0200 Subject: AW: [Gov 649] Re: [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090411204107.F044AA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> JFC: Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. Wolfgang: This is a great proposal. How we can do this? Should we try to identify candidates who could be pushing this forward in case they are elected? I also agree with you other points related to CS. Probably we could linke a EURALO event to EURODIG. Question is funding ;-((((- w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Apr 12 17:17:48 2009 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:17:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090411204107.F044AA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <49E25A7C.4020704@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang schrieb: > JFC: Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, > adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. > Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. > Wolfgang: This is a great proposal. How we can do this? Such broad campaigns are always tricky. Right now, most of the campaigning is done around the EU telecom package currently in 2nd reading, see FYI: We had a meeting of some German and European digital rights NGOs in Berlin on 3rd April (most of us were there because of the re:publica conference and the privacy open space sub-conference, see www.privacyos.eu). We agreed to aim for a public statement to be released before the EP elections, hopefully on 23rd May. It will not aim at internet rights only, but probably be a more general statement against the growing surveillance mania, but will also include opposition to internet "filtering" and related censorship efforts. We will try to coordinate this with European networks like EDRi.org, the Open Network Coalition (http://laquadrature.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opennetcoalition) and the "Freedom not Fear" partners (https://listes.globenet.org/listinfo/fnf2008). I will try to relay relevant updates to the WSIS-EU list. But anybody interested in helping out here should drop me an email offlist. > Should we try to identify candidates who could be pushing this > forward in case they are elected? A good start for this is . Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Apr 12 18:51:18 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:51:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance - multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Message-ID: <38CA0D3DB77C4715BF2CC43CB4334243@IAN> Folks, workshop proposals need to be submited in a week. This particular subject attracted a lot of support, so I am attempting below a first draft of a workshop proposal. Given our time constraints, can I suggest that rather than debate the subject below, you suggest alternative wording and changes to the proposal. We seem to have broad agreement that we should mount a workshop in this area, but some difficulty in wording a proposal appropiately. I am suggesting an organising committee for this workshop of Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, and Bertrand de la Chapelle (without asking them) We need a final draft this week. Title Global Internet Governance – multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Concise description The working definition of Internet Governance in Article 34 of TAIS is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. The WSIS documents have explicitly supported the multistakeholder model in Internet Governance. However, how this would function in agenda-setting, regime drafting, formal adoption/validation, implementation and enforcement is clear. If the IGF and ICANN are laboratories for the new multi-stakeholder governance as we believe they are, this discussion is a central contribution to a better understanding of how it can work. How can multistakeholder involvement evolve to provide appropriate governance structures that work effectivelt for all stakeholder groups? Relates to theme – Critical Internet Resources If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think should organize it? To be effective, this workshop will need to involve representatives of all stakeholder groups . We propose an organizing committee including Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Bertrand de la Chapelle, and William Drake to work with all stakeholder groups 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 andersj at elon.edu Sun Apr 12 19:20:43 2009 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:20:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance Message-ID: Excellent workshop and all-star committee - I hope all will participate. This is a great start to getting it organized, so thank you for your efforts, Ian. A couple of points to correct: You left the word "not" out of the second paragraph of the concise description. There's also a typo in the last sentence in that section - should be "effectively." It is important to continue to tread carefully when proposing governance "structures" - the Imagining the Internet survey at IGF-Rio clearly indicated that most people actively involved in the IGF process believe that whenever possible when it comes to governance less is more. Janna Anderson On 4/12/09 6:51 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: Folks, workshop proposals need to be submited in a week. This particular subject attracted a lot of support, so I am attempting below a first draft of a workshop proposal. Given our time constraints, can I suggest that rather than debate the subject below, you suggest alternative wording and changes to the proposal. We seem to have broad agreement that we should mount a workshop in this area, but some difficulty in wording a proposal appropiately. I am suggesting an organising committee for this workshop of Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, and Bertrand de la Chapelle (without asking them) We need a final draft this week. Title Global Internet Governance ˆ multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Concise description The working definition of Internet Governance in Article 34 of TAIS is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. The WSIS documents have explicitly supported the multistakeholder model in Internet Governance. However, how this would function in agenda-setting, regime drafting, formal adoption/validation, implementation and enforcement is clear. If the IGF and ICANN are laboratories for the new multi-stakeholder governance as we believe they are, this discussion is a central contribution to a better understanding of how it can work. How can multistakeholder involvement evolve to provide appropriate governance structures that work effectivelt for all stakeholder groups? Relates to theme ˆ Critical Internet Resources If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think should organize it? To be effective, this workshop will need to involve representatives of all stakeholder groups . We propose an organizing committee including Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Bertrand de la Chapelle, and William Drake to work with all stakeholder groups ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 12 19:20:01 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:20:01 +1000 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal - Towards a zero carbon Internet Message-ID: Let me know what you think of IGC endorsement of a proposal along these lines, or any suggested changes. I appreciate this is a particular interest of mine and a way away from the normal business of IGC, but would be happy to see IGC involved if people feel that way. Title Towards a zero carbon Internet Concise description This workshop is to specifically explore the steps which can be taken by Internet users, but specifically by large private sector and governmental users, to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with current internet usage patterns and architectures. Much investigation in this area has been undertaken and there are some fine private sector examples we can look at. There are also known actions which can be easily adopted which will be outlined during the workshop. Please note that this workshop should not be combined with workshops looking at measurement of IT greenhouse gas emissions to meet carbon trading scheme requirements. Important as those measures are, they result in an entirely different discussion involving a different set of stakeholders. This workshop is about what can be done immediately and work going on in the field at this time. Relates to theme - Critical Internet Resources If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think should organize it? We would seek to have involved represntatives of Google and VMWare, a representative of the Internet Architecture Board, a representative of CANARIE (Canada) who have a significant program in this area, IISD, APC and others. 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Apr 12 19:24:23 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:24:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [Gov 649] Re: [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090411204107.F044AA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20090413024041.7BB9B6789C@smtp1.electricembers.net> At 16:05 12/04/2009, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >JFC: >Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, >adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. >Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. > >Wolfgang: >This is a great proposal. How we can do this? Should we try to >identify candidates who could be pushing this forward in case they >are elected? I propose to create citizen at euro-igf.eu lists per languages (i.e. citoyens at euro-fgi.eu en français, etc.) and to create a wiki with a page available to every list of candidates. When they register they can introduce themselves, and then develop their positions in using their own page. Then every list of candidate or candidate (depending on the country system I presume?) will have to explain its/her position in response to our/user questions. We set-up a small team per country to manage - find the mail addresses - send them mails - manage the national wiki page it becomes a local Euro-IGF secretariat with the national mailing lists. As long as the person/team want to be neutral, professionnal and serve (and not to decide) his/its country internet policy and development, it is OK. So after the election we can use the Euro-IGF either as a true on-line Euro-IGF, or as a lobbying tool towards a real euro-IGF meeting. Also, we will have an interface in every european political parties. The need is a fine trustable person for each country. I can register a non-profit non-political secretariat membership limited to active helpers forming the BoD (one per country is necessary and enough + adminstrative editor, operations support, moderator and treasurer [31 members]), to admin the project. I can have one or two part time French persons to help. Such a thing to work must be very very mechanic. Taking no position. But asking good questions they may collect from the users. I am building a non-profit wikifarm on a dedicated Linux server. If somebody could help me (MySQL, Mediawiki, some extensions, mailman, some statistic tools, etc.) we can have something by the end of the week. >I also agree with you other points related to CS. Probably we could >linke a EURALO event to EURODIG. Question is funding ;-((((- Which funding? We are not interested in spending but in acting people. If france at large do things for 8 years and INTLNET for 31 it is because we have no money (no banking account). So we do not need to pay banks, accountants, etc. And we are FREE ! As a result - we have not been accepted as an ALS, we are not Euralo members, and we did not come in the Mexico ICANN atlarge incentive vacations. The recipe is to have people motivated who see enough of action return on their time investment to accept to pay for one or two european trips to meeting starting after the arrival of the morning train in well located places with low fare/hitch-hiking transportation. If/when the things works the non-profit will manage the relations with sponsors and T&L for real support. Best. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 12 23:06:40 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:36:40 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG Message-ID: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. *Title* * Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today * *Concise description (up to 200 words)* * *As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. * * * Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs * * *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it?* It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Apr 12 23:30:53 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:30:53 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1AD164692D984486A3F5A03DA4BCFE11@IAN> Thanks Parminder - one small suggested change >One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, > but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance [by all people of the world, who are all implicated] Can I suggest replacing the bracketed words with " involving civil society, private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder governance structures How does that sit? Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at itforchange.net Mon Apr 13 00:04:51 2009 From: anja at itforchange.net (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:34:51 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Comments on draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: <6E4FB158204E4C9FA0C7EC3BB1CE98AA@IAN> References: <6E4FB158204E4C9FA0C7EC3BB1CE98AA@IAN> Message-ID: <49E2B9E3.1050006@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From omar at kaminski.adv.br Mon Apr 13 00:12:15 2009 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:12:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] Does the Internet spread democracy? References: <6E4FB158204E4C9FA0C7EC3BB1CE98AA@IAN> <49E2B9E3.1050006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Good text, worth reading: http://bostonreview.net/BR34.2/morozov.php Texting Toward Utopia Does the Internet spread democracy? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 13 00:13:50 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:43:50 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <1AD164692D984486A3F5A03DA4BCFE11@IAN> References: <1AD164692D984486A3F5A03DA4BCFE11@IAN> Message-ID: <49E2BBFE.4070606@itforchange.net> Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks Parminder - one small suggested change > > >One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to > keeping it running smoothly, > > but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative > political governance [by all people of the world, who are all implicated] > > Can I suggest replacing the bracketed words with " involving civil > society, private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder > governance structures > > > How does that sit? > Ian, Frankly, I believe that the basic political purpose is to get equal political representation of all people and all sections of people, of the world. Multistakeholderism is *only a means*, to the extent it does achieve the purpose, of ensuring that such participation is in fact achieved. I have great issues in mentioning multistakeholderism *instead of* participation of all people. Such a stance underlies a new political ideology that is taking strong roots in the world, which in my view is essentially anti-democratic. I have no problem with *also* mentioning multistakeholderism along with political participation of people of the world. regards Parminder > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 13 April 2009 13:07 > *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > *Subject:* [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of IG > > > This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation > workshop. > > *Title* > > * > Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way > forward from where we stand today > > * > > *Concise description (up to 200 words)* > > * > *As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social > structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, > democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing > imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political > realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes > that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related > to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance > arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing > however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical > artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it > running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative political governance by all people of the world, who > are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here > depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of > evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and > analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and > disadvantages of each. * * > > * > Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs > > ** > *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > should organize it?* > > > It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society > actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with > some civil society organizations form the North and South that > have shown interest. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 13 01:39:16 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:39:16 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49E2BBFE.4070606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51DBD5628F0A4979813B46B050C843C6@IAN> Parminder, my problems with the way you have phrased this is below. The wording "Participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated" will, I think, lead to an argument that the appropriate participative structures for all people are governments, and sovereign states are the basic building blocks for people's participation in internet governance (and so the rest of you can go home!) Unless we have strong arguments - which we do - that other players such as private sector and CS need to be represented separately because of the nature of their structures and their avenues for richer levels of participation. I dont think we are far apart here but we do need some appropriate wording. How about One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon. This requires participative political involvement of all people, including civil society, private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder governance structures Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 14:14 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG Ian Peter wrote: Thanks Parminder - one small suggested change >One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, > but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance [by all people of the world, who are all implicated] Can I suggest replacing the bracketed words with " involving civil society, private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder governance structures How does that sit? Ian, Frankly, I believe that the basic political purpose is to get equal political representation of all people and all sections of people, of the world. Multistakeholderism is *only a means*, to the extent it does achieve the purpose, of ensuring that such participation is in fact achieved. I have great issues in mentioning multistakeholderism *instead of* participation of all people. Such a stance underlies a new political ideology that is taking strong roots in the world, which in my view is essentially anti-democratic. I have no problem with *also* mentioning multistakeholderism along with political participation of people of the world. regards Parminder Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 13 09:54:58 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:54:58 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <51DBD5628F0A4979813B46B050C843C6@IAN> References: <49E2BBFE.4070606@itforchange.net> <51DBD5628F0A4979813B46B050C843C6@IAN> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> There is another, deeper problem with Parminder's formulation. When we talk about "participative political governance" we need to explicitly recognize that "democratic" governance must always take place within a framework of protected rights of individuals. Majorities can be as oppressive as unaccountable tyrants, we all know. So while I prefer Parminder's reference to "participative political governance by all people of the world" to vague references to "multistakeholderism" I think that will sound threatening to many people unless we also make it clear that such governance is limited and contained by rights and freedoms _from_ governance in the appropriate areas. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:39 AM To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG Parminder, my problems with the way you have phrased this is below. The wording "Participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated" will, I think, lead to an argument that the appropriate participative structures for all people are governments, and sovereign states are the basic building blocks for people's participation in internet governance (and so the rest of you can go home!) Unless we have strong arguments - which we do - that other players such as private sector and CS need to be represented separately because of the nature of their structures and their avenues for richer levels of participation. I dont think we are far apart here but we do need some appropriate wording. How about One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon. This requires participative political involvement of all people, including civil society, private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder governance structures Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 14:14 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG Ian Peter wrote: Thanks Parminder - one small suggested change >One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, > but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance [by all people of the world, who are all implicated] Can I suggest replacing the bracketed words with " involving civil society, private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder governance structures How does that sit? Ian, Frankly, I believe that the basic political purpose is to get equal political representation of all people and all sections of people, of the world. Multistakeholderism is *only a means*, to the extent it does achieve the purpose, of ensuring that such participation is in fact achieved. I have great issues in mentioning multistakeholderism *instead of* participation of all people. Such a stance underlies a new political ideology that is taking strong roots in the world, which in my view is essentially anti-democratic. I have no problem with *also* mentioning multistakeholderism along with political participation of people of the world. regards Parminder Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 13 09:58:17 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:58:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD7F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> If it's not too late, I support Adam's suggestion. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:14 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors > > February last year we sent a comment for a consultation on the > renewal and restructuring of the MAG > asking for clarification about the role of Chair's Special Advisors > and criteria for their selection. > > Seems strange to have criteria and process for MAG members, and then > a group of people who act as equal to any other MAG member, but > without any concern for their selection, diversity, representation, > even number. > > As there's a MAG renewal process going on now, suggest we ask that > answers about the role etc of advisors be given when the new MAG is > announced. > > 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 13 10:21:07 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:21:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] NN Workshop proposal Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> With thanks to Parminder and Adam. For discussion and additions of examples (other countries) Title Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles Concise description (up to 200 words) Network neutrality (NN) can be controversial because there are conflicting ideas about what it is and what obligations it imposes on service providers. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN and in particular examine how consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in middle income and developing countries. Relates to theme - Openness Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it? Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 13 11:12:44 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:12:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD7F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD7F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49E3566C.9060803@rits.org.br> Then we better act quickly because the chair is already selecting new SAs, as he does every year. I personally think it might be too late, but... --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > If it's not too late, I support Adam's suggestion. > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:14 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors >> >> February last year we sent a comment for a consultation on the >> renewal and restructuring of the MAG >> asking for clarification about the role of Chair's Special Advisors >> and criteria for their selection. >> >> Seems strange to have criteria and process for MAG members, and then >> a group of people who act as equal to any other MAG member, but >> without any concern for their selection, diversity, representation, >> even number. >> >> As there's a MAG renewal process going on now, suggest we ask that >> answers about the role etc of advisors be given when the new MAG is >> announced. >> >> 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 13 11:17:17 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:17:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] NN Workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49E3577D.5050403@rits.org.br> Dear all, the issue regarding NN (not MM) is always around its "complexity". When we try to refine, the approach that emerges is usually biased in favor of the problems the poor suffering ISPs will have to confront. The focus ought to be on communication rights (where is the CRIS campaign, for crying out loud??). We must worry about the other end, the so-called "final user", the weakest link where all rights are far more easily violated. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > With thanks to Parminder and Adam. For discussion and additions of examples (other countries) > > Title > Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > Network neutrality (NN) can be controversial because there are conflicting ideas about what it is and what obligations it imposes on service providers. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN and in particular examine how consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in middle income and developing countries. > > Relates to theme - > Openness > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it? > > Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 13:14:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:44:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] NN Workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <49E3577D.5050403@rits.org.br> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49E3577D.5050403@rits.org.br> Message-ID: I agree with Carlos. While I like Milton's basic proposal, with a global theme, MM: "in particular examine how consensus in the developed world might affect *infrastructure development* in middle income and developing countries." I think it is also important to continue the emphasis (as Milton does) on developing countries, but adding a greater emphasis on how it will affect final USERS. The Internet exists for the sake of the users, not so the ISPs can make money. Yes, they need incentives, they will not provide services for free, nor should they. But ISPs/infrastructure have capable, strong, loud voices. Users, especially in developing countries, must also have a coherent global strategy. Can we say something like: "in particular examine how consensus on infrastructure in the developed world might affect final users, particularly in middle income and developing countries." This is an important concept and workshop, but I think that ultimately it must be about how NN will affect the final user. Thanks, gp Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu -----Mensaje original----- De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Enviado el: Lunes, 13 de Abril de 2009 10:47 a.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Asunto: Re: [governance] NN Workshop proposal Dear all, the issue regarding NN (not MM) is always around its "complexity". When we try to refine, the approach that emerges is usually biased in favor of the problems the poor suffering ISPs will have to confront. The focus ought to be on communication rights (where is the CRIS campaign, for crying out loud??). We must worry about the other end, the so-called "final user", the weakest link where all rights are far more easily violated. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > With thanks to Parminder and Adam. For discussion and additions of examples (other countries) > > Title > Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > Network neutrality (NN) can be controversial because there are conflicting ideas about what it is and what obligations it imposes on service providers. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN and in particular examine how consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in middle income and developing countries. > > Relates to theme - > Openness > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it? > > Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Apr 14 08:51:29 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:21:29 -0430 Subject: [governance] Opennet comment on European "Telecoms Package" -- note for our NN workshop? Message-ID: This certainly has global implications. I will have to read more about the “package”, but it seems we should look into it. Best, gp [FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE] Opennetcoalition calls for protection of European citizens and users rights on Internet Amendments to the "Telecoms Package" before the European Parliament will likely mean that Internet users and citizens will no longer have unmonitored Internet access and free access to websites of their choice. * This proposed EU regime has many privacy and civil rights issues it is contrary to articles 7, 8, 11 and 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights(1). * The idea of "3 strikes and you are out" is almost Stalinist in outlook. This is not the Europe that citizens want, but the one that some politicians are starting to build. * An ISP(2) can decide which website you can visit, arbitrary websites could possibly be blocked under this regime. You may have to pay more to visit "foreign" websites. * The damage this will this cause to our international reputation is enormous. * The financial implications for citizens and companies of this filtering system will be large, taxpayers will have to pay for these additional costs. * Many companies will send their servers out of the EU so that they can continue to guarantee connectivity. Many others will not be able to export their products and services * The proposed solutions are essentially futile. The Opennetcoalition are calling simply for Net Neutrality and the rights of users to be respected and protected. The function of an ISP is to deliver your message intact and without interference, to the destination, wherever that may be. None of this precludes proper judicial oversight or any agencies seeking a specific remedy in the Courts, in respect of infringing sites and users. The specific issues are explained in a number of languages on our website. ### ENDS Notes: 1. Security and Fundamental Freedoms on the Internet 2. ISP : Internet Service Provider ----------------------- ABOUT the Europe wide Opennetcoalition Free Knowledge Institute - Wouter Tebbens P2P Foundation - Celia Blanco and Michel Bauwens eXgae - Simona Levi ISOC-ECC - Christopher Wilkinson Ireland Offline - Eamonn Wallace Hispalinux - Jorge Fuentes Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung - Ralf Bendrath Asociacion de Internautas - Victor Domingo IT-Political Association of Denmark - Niels Elgaard Larsen Istituto per le Politiche dell'Innovazione - Guido Scorza Associazione Scambio Etico - Paolo Brini EDRI - Niels Elgaard Larsen La Quadrature du Net - Jérémie Zimmermann Open Rights Group - Jim Killock FFII - Alberto Barrionuevo Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS).- Laura Ranca For more information on the organisation, please visit the Blackout Europe website at http://www.blackouteurope.eu or contact us at blackout.europe at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 14 09:20:17 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:50:17 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <51DBD5628F0A4979813B46B050C843C6@IAN> References: <51DBD5628F0A4979813B46B050C843C6@IAN> Message-ID: <49E48D91.3070308@itforchange.net> Ian >Participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated" will, I think, lead to an argument that the appropriate participative structures for all >people are governments, and sovereign states are the basic building blocks for people's participation in internet governance" If they so argue we have to argue against it. It is not the first time that it will be claimed that elected governments do not exhaust the issue of people representation. The whole concept of 'deepening democracy' is about it. And it is not merely a concept, it is practiced all over the world, with great results. India has a very fertile ground of fruitful civil society and grassroots movements engagement in deepening democracy. There is extensive literature on it, UNDP has an annual HDR report on this issue. In the specific context of the 'new situation' of an unprecedented level and kind of global-ness of the Internet and therefore of IG, we need to argue that a new level (and kind) of global civil society involvement is even more important, and should be appropriately structured. >This requires participative political involvement of all people, including civil society, private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder governance structures I do not believe the the private sector (business sector) brings in 'participative political involvement of people'. Do you believe it does? Therefore I really do not believe it should be 'a part of' any political governance system. The fact that in many circles is is becoming difficult to even mention this proposition - which would be taken as something obvious in any political discussion maybe only 2 decades ago - points to the fact of how much the ideology of democracy is threatened today. Would you agree to private sector begin a part of your national governance system? If not, why different standards for global systems? But I do understand the present context in which IG, and most of the civil society around it is situated, and we may accordingly mention the multistakeholder word. I will propose the following formulation. "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, ensured through multi-stakeholder models. " Parminder Ian Peter wrote: > Parminder, my problems with the way you have phrased this is below. > > The wording "Participative political governance by all people of the > world, who are all implicated" will, I think, lead to an argument > that the appropriate participative structures for all people are > governments, and sovereign states are the basic building blocks for > people's participation in internet governance (and so the rest of you > can go home!) Unless we have strong arguments - which we do - that > other players such as private sector and CS need to be represented > separately because of the nature of their structures and their avenues > for richer levels of participation. > > I dont think we are far apart here but we do need some appropriate > wording. How about > > > One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to > keeping it running smoothly, > but a key socio-political phenomenon. This requires participative > political involvement of all people, including civil society, private > sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder governance structures > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 13 April 2009 14:14 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of IG > > > > Ian Peter wrote: >> Thanks Parminder - one small suggested change >> >> >One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to >> keeping it running smoothly, >> > but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative >> political governance [by all people of the world, who are all >> implicated] >> >> Can I suggest replacing the bracketed words with " involving >> civil society, private sector and governmental actors in >> multistakeholder governance structures >> >> >> How does that sit? >> > Ian, > > Frankly, I believe that the basic political purpose is to get > equal political representation of all people and all sections of > people, of the world. Multistakeholderism is *only a means*, to > the extent it does achieve the purpose, of ensuring that such > participation is in fact achieved. I have great issues in > mentioning multistakeholderism *instead of* participation of all > people. Such a stance underlies a new political ideology that is > taking strong roots in the world, which in my view is essentially > anti-democratic. I have no problem with *also* mentioning > multistakeholderism along with political participation of people > of the world. > > regards > > Parminder > > > >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Sent:* 13 April 2009 13:07 >> *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> *Subject:* [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >> Internationalisation of IG >> >> >> This is an attempted draft for the proposed >> internationalisation workshop. >> >> *Title* >> >> * >> Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The >> way forward from where we stand today >> >> * >> >> *Concise description (up to 200 words)* >> >> * >> *As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our >> social structures, and doing so at a global level as never >> before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a >> pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew >> out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new >> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >> emerging issues related to its governance, and the >> correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not >> have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear >> by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, >> requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon >> requiring participative political governance by all people of >> the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we >> move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important >> to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of >> IG from these dual standpoints. >> >> >> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >> possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and >> analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and >> disadvantages of each. * * >> >> * >> Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs >> >> ** >> *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >> think should organize it?* >> >> >> It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society >> actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along >> with some civil society organizations form the North and >> South that have shown interest. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 09:48:57 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:18:57 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <49E2BBFE.4070606@itforchange.net> <51DBD5628F0A4979813B46B050C843C6@IAN> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49E49449.3000805@itforchange.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > There is another, deeper problem with Parminder's formulation. When we > talk about "participative political governance" we need to explicitly > recognize that "democratic" governance must always take place within a > framework of protected rights of individuals. Majorities can be as > oppressive as unaccountable tyrants, we all know. So while I prefer > Parminder's reference to "participative political governance by all > people of the world" to vague references to "multistakeholderism" I > think that will sound threatening to many people unless we also make > it clear that such governance is limited and contained by rights and > freedoms _from_ governance in the appropriate areas. I very much agree with the substance of your posting. However, when I mention 'democratic' in the title itself i think it obviously includes the nunace and evovled meaning of democracy as generaly understood - which included constitutionalism (that is why we advocate for adopting Internet rights and principles), human rights, structured participation etc - it is not about simple tyranny of numbers. >take place within a framework of protected rights of individuals. Human rights is the accepted term, in all its nuances that we have argued often about and disagreed :) . I am quite happy with adding 'human rights framework' to the present proposed text. Building on the text I proposed in my last email, it can be something like "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, ensured through multi-stakeholder models, and adopting human rights frameworks." parminder > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2009 1:39 AM > *To:* 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of IG > > Parminder, my problems with the way you have phrased this is below. > > The wording "Participative political governance by all people of > the world, who are all implicated" will, I think, lead to an > argument that the appropriate participative structures for all > people are governments, and sovereign states are the basic > building blocks for people's participation in internet > governance (and so the rest of you can go home!) Unless we have > strong arguments - which we do - that other players such as > private sector and CS need to be represented separately because of > the nature of their structures and their avenues for richer levels > of participation. > > I dont think we are far apart here but we do need some appropriate > wording. How about > > > One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to > keeping it running smoothly, > but a key socio-political phenomenon. This requires participative > political involvement of all people, including civil society, > private sector and governmental actors in multistakeholder > governance structures > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 13 April 2009 14:14 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of IG > > > > Ian Peter wrote: >> Thanks Parminder - one small suggested change >> >> >One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >> regard to keeping it running smoothly, >> > but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative >> political governance [by all people of the world, who are all >> implicated] >> >> Can I suggest replacing the bracketed words with " involving >> civil society, private sector and governmental actors in >> multistakeholder governance structures >> >> >> How does that sit? >> > Ian, > > Frankly, I believe that the basic political purpose is to get > equal political representation of all people and all sections > of people, of the world. Multistakeholderism is *only a > means*, to the extent it does achieve the purpose, of ensuring > that such participation is in fact achieved. I have great > issues in mentioning multistakeholderism *instead of* > participation of all people. Such a stance underlies a new > political ideology that is taking strong roots in the world, > which in my view is essentially anti-democratic. I have no > problem with *also* mentioning multistakeholderism along with > political participation of people of the world. > > regards > > Parminder > > > >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Sent:* 13 April 2009 13:07 >> *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> *Subject:* [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >> Internationalisation of IG >> >> >> This is an attempted draft for the proposed >> internationalisation workshop. >> >> *Title* >> >> * >> Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - >> The way forward from where we stand today >> >> * >> >> *Concise description (up to 200 words)* >> >> * >> *As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our >> social structures, and doing so at a global level as >> never before, democratic global governance of the >> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as >> well as of some new socio-political realities around the >> Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related >> to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate >> governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated >> by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >> participative political governance by all people of the >> world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we >> move in from here depends on where we stand. It is >> important to analyze the needs of evolution and >> internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. >> >> >> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >> possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and >> analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages >> and disadvantages of each. * * >> >> * >> Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs >> >> ** >> *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >> think should organize it?* >> >> >> It is best that this workshop is organized by civil >> society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this >> workshop, along with some civil society organizations >> form the North and South that have shown interest. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Apr 14 14:47:23 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:17:23 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation Workshop Proposal Message-ID: <0E95844B2E064BD69DD8F577B7A35E8E@GINGERLAPTOP> I am posting this rough draft in the name of the RPWG. After responses, they will submit a refined version (shorter) for approval. Please comment asap. 1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words) Remote Participation: mapping the field, evaluation and multistakeholder involvement 2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200 words) At the IGF Hyderabad, the Remote Participation Working Group and the IGF Secretariat coordinated with local partners in the creation of IGF hubs and support for Remote Participation in the IGF main event. Since then, the debate about remote participation has gained momentum and support from different stakeholders, especially during the Geneva Open Consultations last February. Despite the growing interest for remote participation, there has been little debate among stakeholders about: a) How they can benefit from the improvement in remote participation possiblities at the IGF; b) what their role is in the projects that aim to enhance remote participation; c) how stakeholders can work synergistically in order to enhance remote participation. The aims of the workshop are to discuss remote participation both from a policy (what should be done) and a best practices approach (what has been done). On the policy level: 1- Mapping the field of remote participation. Identify the impelling/institutional arrangements where remote participation is mostly needed. Identify additional prospective stakeholders that should be involved on this initiative and how to get them involved 2- Remote participation with a focus on the inclusion of people from developing countries 3- Remote participation as a way to address global and regional fora and issues 4- Access to information and capacity building as necessities for meaningful remote participation 5- Increasing Remote Participation in support of greater inclusion for people with disabilities. Best practices: 1- Best practices in the IGF: an evaluation on the progress of remote participation 2- Guidelines for remote participation in the IGF: a step towards a code of best practices in the field of remote participation? 3- The experiences of the IGF hubs as commented by local organizers 3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes (Critical Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or under the cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)? If so which one? (Please select the most appropriate one.) Capacity Building Capacity development must be seen both as a precondition and as an outcome of remote participation. The involvement of a broader range of stakeholders on the Internet Governance debate, particularly those from developing countries, will have a positive impact on their abilities to follow and to intervene on global and regional debates. Building Capacity in this area will foster access, openness and diversity in international policy processes. 4.Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the link to the report. IGC has organized the following workshops "Internet for all - Exploring a rights-based approach" Available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72 workshops/345-internet-for-all-exploring-a-rights-based-approach " The transboundary Internet: jurisdiction, control and sovereignty" Available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72 -workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-a nd-sovereignty 5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself? 1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) and the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) We suggest approaching DiploFoundation as well. DiploFoundation has organized and reported on a number of Capacity Building and other workshops. Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 14:56:06 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:56:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Request for civil society sign-on to support NCUC's petition for a non-commercial stakeholder group at ICANN Message-ID: <51858426-915A-4997-B999-40472598DA17@ipjustice.org> Dear All, I am contacting you in the hopes that you will add your noncommercial organization’s support for the proposed Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter at ICANN by signing this joint civil society statement: http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/ NCSG_Charter_Civil_Society_Support.pdf (deadline: 15 April) As you know, the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the organization that represents non-commercial interests and advocates for the protection of digital rights including free expression, privacy, due process of law and other non-commercial interests in ICANN-GNSO policy discussions. As part of ICANN’s GNSO Restructuring efforts, the 6 “constituencies” are being replaced by 4 broader “stakeholder groups”, including a Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) to represent the interests of non-commercial users of domain names in the GNSO policy arena at ICANN. NCUC has submitted a petition for the charter of the NCSG that intends to encourage broader civil society participation at ICANN and aims to increase the relative power of non-commercial interests in ICANN policy negotiations. Noncommercial individuals and organizations are invited to participate in the NCSG, which will be governed by stakeholder group wide elections under the petition. All of the proposed stakeholder group petitions are in the midst of a Public Comment Period at ICANN (until 15 April) so the ICANN Board of Directors can receive input from the general public on the various stakeholder group petitions. Today I write to ask that your organization consider signing onto the attached joint civil society statement supporting NCUC’s proposal for a stakeholder group petition to be filed in the Public Comment forum. The NCSG charter needs your support to ensure that all non- commercial interests have a voice through their GNSO representatives and in the creation of policy. We ask for your support because we want the stakeholder group that represents non-commercial interests to be able to generate sound, consensual, and collaborative policy and decisions that are representative of all of the members in the stakeholder group. In summary, the NCUC’s petition for a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group is the best proposal of those submitted because it: Emphasizes democratic representation to the Generic Names Supporting Organization instead of a constituency-based approach that gives disproportionate power to select groups. Encourages cooperation and inclusiveness through consensus-building among members of the stakeholder groups. Ensures that minority viewpoints are heard and their policy ideas are explored through an increased reliance on working groups. Operates with a flexible and lightweight framework that allows it to focus on representing non-commercial interests without getting bogged down by bureaucratic details. Was drafted in consultation with dozens of civil society organizations representing all corners of the globe and went through numerous evolutions and thus represents a true consensus document, submitted by the entire NCUC (over 70 members, accept 1 dissenter). Please consider signing the following statement to indicate your support for the NCSG petition from NCUC. Joint Civil Society Statement Supporting the NCSG Petition from NCUC: http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/ NCSG_Charter_Civil_Society_Support.pdf We would be glad to provide any additional information or answer any questions or concerns you may have on the issue. Please indicate your support for signing this civil society statement before 15 April (which is the deadline for submitting Public Comments) by sending an email to robin at ipjustice.org. Thank you very much. Signed, The NCUC Executive Committee and GNSO Councilors: Robin Gross, NCUC Chair Norbert Klein, NCUC Nominating Committee Representative (Asia) Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, NCUC GNSO Policy Councilor (South America) Mary Wong, NCUC GNSO Policy Councilor (Asia) William Drake, NCUC GNSO Policy Councilor (Europe) Carlos Afonso, NCUC Executive Committee Representative (South America) Horacio Cadiz NCUC Executive Committee Representative (Asia) Georg Greve, NCUC Executive Committee Representative (Europe) Robert Guerra, NCUC Executive Committee Representative (North America) Dave Kissoondoyal, NCUC Executive Committee Representative (Africa) Background Information: Joint Civil Society Statement Supporting the NCSG Petition from NCUC: http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/ NCSG_Charter_Civil_Society_Support.pdf NCUC’s Petition to Form a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf Executive Summary / Cover Letter of NCSG Petition from NCUC: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg- proposal.pdf Information on ICANN Public Comment Period for Stakeholder Group Petitions: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#sg-petitions Public Comments Submitted Thus Far on Stakeholder Group Petitions: http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/ IGF/WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Statement Supporting NCUC’s NCSG Proposal: http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00009.html 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 14 15:38:30 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:38:30 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49E49449.3000805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7C1F08FBE40842A9AC2A8D742C28C303@IAN> I am happy with the change Parminder has suggested "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, ensured through multi-stakeholder models, and adopting human rights frameworks." 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Wed Apr 15 01:16:02 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:16:02 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: Bonjour Jean-Luis et vous tous Je suis d'accord que la société civile doit boycotter la réunion de cette semaine, mais il serait bon de le faire savoir aux intéressés eux-mêmes. C'est pourquoi il faudrait soit envoyer une personne qui l'exprimera en public, soit envoyer une lettre qui explique nos raisons... La politique de la chaise vide est dangereuse pour ceux qui ne l'occupent pas ... Sauf s'ils restent actifs par ailleurs :-) Divina Le 11/04/09 8:46, « jlfullsack » a écrit : > > Bonjour Jean-François et tous > > Je ne préconise pas le boycott de cette réunion à cause de Catherine > Trautmann que je connais et apprécie pour son engagement en d'autres > circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de principe : > celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi "égalitaire" que > possible à la SC européenne. Bref, je demande à NOS élus, de respecter ce > que NOS gouvernements ont signé à Genève et à Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout > entier doit en être conscient. > > Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et écrit dans mon compte-rendu -envoyé à > Catherine Trautmann et à Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir réellement > à la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Européen. C'est un > prérequis. La réunion annoncée est comme une fin de non-recevoir à cette > demande. > > Il y a un moment où il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" car les > règles du jeu sont trop pipées. Ce moment est là : il faut le saisir et > espérer que nos élus en tirent -enfin!- les conséquences. Pour qu'un > véritable FGI-Européen multi-partenarial se mette -enfin !- en place. > > Amicalement > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JFC Morfin" > To: ; "Louis Pouzin" > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > >> >> At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>> One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>> No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >>> >>> For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>> It is "irrelevant". >> >> Dans le principe, OK. Il est même aggressif (Google, ISOC, e-commerce UK, >> le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). >> Mais, nous n'avons peut-être pas à nous mettre à mal avec le PS (au moment >> de l'Hadopi) où Trauttmann fait-là ce qu'elle peut dans l'urgence pour que >> l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a travaillé sur sa motion >> de l'année passée ? >> jfc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-EUC mailing list > WSIS-EUC at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-euc > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 15 05:02:44 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:02:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance - multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector In-Reply-To: <38CA0D3DB77C4715BF2CC43CB4334243@IAN> References: <38CA0D3DB77C4715BF2CC43CB4334243@IAN> Message-ID: <02910CFA-E4F6-455F-9456-8E2B6AF8C9EF@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Ian, Sorry to be slow to notice this, busy... On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Folks, workshop proposals need to be submited in a week. This > particular subject attracted a lot of support, so I am attempting > below a first draft of a workshop proposal. > > Given our time constraints, can I suggest that rather than debate > the subject below, you suggest alternative wording and changes to > the proposal. We seem to have broad agreement that we should mount a > workshop in this area, but some difficulty in wording a proposal > appropiately. > > I am suggesting an organising committee for this workshop of Bill > Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, and Bertrand de la Chapelle (without > asking them) Inasmuch as all three of us are leaving for Lisbon and the WTPF in a couple days and Wolfgang and Bertrand are probably as swamped as I am, we might want to broaden the pool of people involved in drafting, consulting with the list, and doing the submission mechanics. > > We need a final draft this week. Then we need more discussion and clarification pronto. > > Title > > Global Internet Governance – multistakeholder involvement of > government, civil society and the private sector > > Concise description > > > The working definition of Internet Governance in Article 34 of TAIS > is the development and application by governments, the private > sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared > principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes > that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Per previous I wouldn't want to start from this 'respective roles' junk language. > > The WSIS documents have explicitly supported the multistakeholder > model in Internet Governance. However, how this would function in > agenda-setting, regime drafting, formal adoption/validation, > implementation and enforcement is clear. > > > > If the IGF and ICANN are laboratories for the new multi-stakeholder > governance as we believe they are, this discussion is a central > contribution to a better understanding of how it can work. How can > multistakeholder involvement evolve to provide appropriate > governance structures that work effectivelt for all stakeholder > groups? > Sorry to be dim, but I'm sort of unclear which conversation people really want to see happen. If I recall correctly this started out as a proposal about the role of governments in unnamed domains of IG, then morphed into the roles of all stakeholders in said domains, then morphed into how to organize multistakeholder processes generally, which sort of has a rather familiar, been there done that flavor to it at first taste....What exactly needs to be talked about that hasn't been? > Relates to theme – > Critical Internet Resources Surely it's broader than this. If it's not, and what people really have in mind is something about ICANN, maybe we should stop speaking in code. Thanks, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 15 05:31:30 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:31:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal - Towards a zero carbon Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <587C6950-9A94-4B9A-A7E0-254B2047CFB2@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Ian, Could I ask you to clarify something. Last year when there were proposals to make climate change a main theme, some of us argued against it, both on the list and in the consultations (where Nitin agreed). Our concerns then were two-fold: First, while there are obviously links between Internet/ICT usage and CC, it wasn't clear what links were being postulated between IG per se and CC. Was the contention that existing mechanisms---say, the regulation of registries and registrars, IPV6, or WIPO/WTO regimes---- have some discreet, identifiable impact that could be ameliorated? Or was it that a new mechanism, say a global regulatory agreement on the operation of server farms, should be established? There was some good research done but ultimately the linkages remained a bit undefined as a basis upon which to proceed. Second, some of us were concerned that the IGF shouldn't go off chasing UN hot topics (no pun intended) when so many questions about the actual institutional frameworks and conduct of IG per se had yet to be explored, or at least explored in any meaningful depth. IGF has generally looked more at "issues" than "institutions," and in many arenas---standards, cybercrime, IPR, e-commerce, etc etc---there's not been much focused discussion of whether the rule systems and decision making procedures in place are optimal, how they distribute benefits across stakeholder groupings, etc. Sticking with the original mission rather than diluting the focus has been a leitmotif of caucus and caucus member interventions over the years, for good reason. If we're going to reverse positions, what has changed since then to make this the best use of an IGC proposal slot (we can't have too many), especially when some IOs will probably make similar proposals again? Do you want to argue for a governance arrangement on energy usage? Or would the steps taken by various actors in their, uh, respective roles, to reduce emissions comprise something more like best practices etc? Thanks, Bill On Apr 13, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Let me know what you think of IGC endorsement of a proposal along > these lines, or any suggested changes. I appreciate this is a > particular interest of mine and a way away from the normal business > of IGC, but would be happy to see IGC involved if people feel that > way. > > > Title Towards a zero carbon Internet > > Concise description > > This workshop is to specifically explore the steps which can be > taken by Internet users, but specifically by large private sector > and governmental users, to substantially reduce greenhouse gas > emissions associated with current internet usage patterns and > architectures. > > Much investigation in this area has been undertaken and there are > some fine private sector examples we can look at. There are also > known actions which can be easily adopted which will be outlined > during the workshop. > > Please note that this workshop should not be combined with workshops > looking at measurement of IT greenhouse gas emissions to meet carbon > trading scheme requirements. Important as those measures are, they > result in an entirely different discussion involving a different set > of stakeholders. This workshop is about what can be done immediately > and work going on in the field at this time. > > > Relates to theme – > > Critical Internet Resources > > > If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you > think should organize it? > > > We would seek to have involved represntatives of Google and > VMWare, a representative of the Internet Architecture Board, a > representative of CANARIE (Canada) who have a significant program in > this area, IISD, APC and others. > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 15 05:47:54 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:47:54 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Parminder, Late to the party, I recognize there's been back and forth on this, but would just like to interject a small suggestion. On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Parminder wrote: > As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social > structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, > democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing > imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political > realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that > the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its > governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance > arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing > however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical > artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it > running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative political governance by all people of the world, who > are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here > depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of > evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. > On Apr 14, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> There is another, deeper problem with Parminder's formulation. When >> we talk about "participative political governance" we need to >> explicitly recognize that "democratic" governance must always take >> place within a framework of protected rights of individuals. >> Majorities can be as oppressive as unaccountable tyrants, we all >> know. So while I prefer Parminder's reference to "participative >> political governance by all people of the world" to vague >> references to "multistakeholderism" I think that will sound >> threatening to many people unless we also make it clear that such >> governance is limited and contained by rights and freedoms _from_ >> governance in the appropriate areas. > > I very much agree with the substance of your posting. However, when > I mention 'democratic' in the title itself i think it obviously > includes the nunace and evovled meaning of democracy as generaly > understood - which included constitutionalism (that is why we > advocate for adopting Internet rights and principles), human rights, > structured participation etc - it is not about simple tyranny of > numbers. The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently democratic, ergo we're advocating DI. Wouldn't it be helpful for us to specify which mechanisms we are talking about rather than leaving it abstract, and what exactly democratic would mean in these contexts? The latter is of course quite a conundrum in all discussions of global governance; the WSIS principles' invocation of the term is hardly a source of philosophical clarity (at the time the background concern was to increase the role of the ITU, which sort of conflated multilateralism with democratic); the WGIG couldn't figure this out and gave up; and not everyone would necessarily understand the term as you define it above. Can we be more precise on what we would all be contending with this proposal? Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 15 14:59:07 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:59:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC WSIS Forum event? References: <5638C5AF8E535C4C9F06DC42D7E9A56C057EF4ED@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> Message-ID: Hi, I don't recall whether this has been raised here before, but people who are still subscribed to the old WSIS-CS list will know that UNCTAD and ITU staff say it is possible for organizations to put together side events during the upcoming WSIS Forum in Geneva. Apparently Thursday 21st has been set aside for thematic workshops and it looks like there are still a number of open slots. The IGC could do something on a hot topic---in a space where a lot of reps from most governments, including a lot of non-IGF regulars, will be milling around----if enough of us will be staying in town to have critical mass (alas, it's the following week from the IGF consultation)... If anyone is interested and available, let's conspire. Best, Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: > Date: April 15, 2009 2:30:33 PM GMT+02:00 > To: , > Cc: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org, discuss at un-gaid.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: Re: [gaid-discuss] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Digital Solidarity > Fund in risk of disappearing: action required > > Dear Colleagues, > > Thank you very much Charles for bringing this possibility to the > attention. Indeed, format of the WSIS Forum 2009 does give the > possibility of having kickoff meetings as well as side events. In > case you would be interested in organizing kick off meeting (10 > people max) we will arrange room for you. If possible please fill in > attached form and send it to me. > > There is always a possibility of having a dedicated special session > to be held on 21 May 2009, the day dedicated to the thematic > workshops/sessions. The capacity of the available rooms is up to 100. > > In case you would need any further information regarding the meeting > please do not hesitate to let me know. > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2009/forum/geneva/index.html > > With kind regards, > > Jaroslaw K. PONDER > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Strategy and Policy Coordinator > International Telecommunication Union > Place des Nations > 1211 Geneva 20 > Switzerland > Tel.: 00 41 22 730 6065 > Fax.: 00 41 22 733 7256 > E-mail: Jaroslaw.Ponder at itu.int > Web: http://www.itu.int/csd > > > > From: Charles Geiger [mailto:Charles.Geiger at unctad.org] > Sent: mercredi, 15. avril 2009 12:28 > To: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space > Cc: discuss at un-gaid.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org > ; Ponder, Jaroslaw > Subject: Fw: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Digital Solidarity Fund in risk of > disappearing: action required > > > Dear all > > With reference to the last para below, I would like to inform you > that short private meetings or short parallel meetings can take > place during the WSIS Forum, depending on room availablilty. If your > organization would need a room for such a meeting, please contact jaroslaw.ponder at itu.int > . > > Charles Geiger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5442 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Apr 15 15:44:08 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:44:08 +1000 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance - multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector In-Reply-To: <02910CFA-E4F6-455F-9456-8E2B6AF8C9EF@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, I put this up on a quick reading of a previous discussion, during which I recall yourself, Wolfgand and Bertrand being enthusisatic about a workshop along these lines. What we will need if we are to submit a proposal (by 21st) will be some agreed wording, a few enthusiastic supporters, and no strong opposition. So apart from Janna and yourself no-one has commented, and we do not have wording. And as you say this is a busy time. If you can suggest something that works for you, we could maybe still get this up by the deadline. If not, it will still be possible to submit a workshop along these lines at a later stage. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 15 April 2009 19:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: "Kleinwächter at gator163.hostgator.com, Wolfgang"; de la Chapelle, Bertrand Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance - multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Hi Ian, Sorry to be slow to notice this, busy... On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Folks, workshop proposals need to be submited in a week. This particular subject attracted a lot of support, so I am attempting below a first draft of a workshop proposal. Given our time constraints, can I suggest that rather than debate the subject below, you suggest alternative wording and changes to the proposal. We seem to have broad agreement that we should mount a workshop in this area, but some difficulty in wording a proposal appropiately. I am suggesting an organising committee for this workshop of Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, and Bertrand de la Chapelle (without asking them) Inasmuch as all three of us are leaving for Lisbon and the WTPF in a couple days and Wolfgang and Bertrand are probably as swamped as I am, we might want to broaden the pool of people involved in drafting, consulting with the list, and doing the submission mechanics. We need a final draft this week. Then we need more discussion and clarification pronto. Title Global Internet Governance – multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Concise description The working definition of Internet Governance in Article 34 of TAIS is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Per previous I wouldn't want to start from this 'respective roles' junk language. The WSIS documents have explicitly supported the multistakeholder model in Internet Governance. However, how this would function in agenda-setting, regime drafting, formal adoption/validation, implementation and enforcement is clear. If the IGF and ICANN are laboratories for the new multi-stakeholder governance as we believe they are, this discussion is a central contribution to a better understanding of how it can work. How can multistakeholder involvement evolve to provide appropriate governance structures that work effectivelt for all stakeholder groups? Sorry to be dim, but I'm sort of unclear which conversation people really want to see happen. If I recall correctly this started out as a proposal about the role of governments in unnamed domains of IG, then morphed into the roles of all stakeholders in said domains, then morphed into how to organize multistakeholder processes generally, which sort of has a rather familiar, been there done that flavor to it at first taste....What exactly needs to be talked about that hasn't been? Relates to theme – Critical Internet Resources Surely it's broader than this. If it's not, and what people really have in mind is something about ICANN, maybe we should stop speaking in code. Thanks, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 15:55:00 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:55:00 +1000 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal - Towards a zero carbon Internet In-Reply-To: <587C6950-9A94-4B9A-A7E0-254B2047CFB2@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Bill, I was thinking more along the lines that probably well over 90% of the worlds connected computers are in large installations run by governments and corporations, and these may be responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions. There is much that can be done if these groups co-operate in new ways. Also there were workshops which I found very disappointing on this in Hyderabad. But yes the governance issue is a little hard to find at this stage and I would certainly not like to see this as a main theme. However I think there is room for a few regional co-operative approaches, there are a few national legislation approaches, and definitely internet architecture approaches that should be examined here or elsewhere. I think these are aspects of governance in a loose sense. (and lets face it much internet "governance" is very loose) But right now with just a few days to go this does not appear to be something IGC is enthusisatic to support, and I am happy t acept that. Iwill give some thought to whether I submit this as an individual or not. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 15 April 2009 19:32 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal - Towards a zero carbon Internet Hi Ian, Could I ask you to clarify something. Last year when there were proposals to make climate change a main theme, some of us argued against it, both on the list and in the consultations (where Nitin agreed). Our concerns then were two-fold: First, while there are obviously links between Internet/ICT usage and CC, it wasn't clear what links were being postulated between IG per se and CC. Was the contention that existing mechanisms---say, the regulation of registries and registrars, IPV6, or WIPO/WTO regimes----have some discreet, identifiable impact that could be ameliorated? Or was it that a new mechanism, say a global regulatory agreement on the operation of server farms, should be established? There was some good research done but ultimately the linkages remained a bit undefined as a basis upon which to proceed. Second, some of us were concerned that the IGF shouldn't go off chasing UN hot topics (no pun intended) when so many questions about the actual institutional frameworks and conduct of IG per se had yet to be explored, or at least explored in any meaningful depth. IGF has generally looked more at "issues" than "institutions," and in many arenas---standards, cybercrime, IPR, e-commerce, etc etc---there's not been much focused discussion of whether the rule systems and decision making procedures in place are optimal, how they distribute benefits across stakeholder groupings, etc. Sticking with the original mission rather than diluting the focus has been a leitmotif of caucus and caucus member interventions over the years, for good reason. If we're going to reverse positions, what has changed since then to make this the best use of an IGC proposal slot (we can't have too many), especially when some IOs will probably make similar proposals again? Do you want to argue for a governance arrangement on energy usage? Or would the steps taken by various actors in their, uh, respective roles, to reduce emissions comprise something more like best practices etc? Thanks, Bill On Apr 13, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Let me know what you think of IGC endorsement of a proposal along these lines, or any suggested changes. I appreciate this is a particular interest of mine and a way away from the normal business of IGC, but would be happy to see IGC involved if people feel that way. Title Towards a zero carbon Internet Concise description This workshop is to specifically explore the steps which can be taken by Internet users, but specifically by large private sector and governmental users, to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with current internet usage patterns and architectures. Much investigation in this area has been undertaken and there are some fine private sector examples we can look at. There are also known actions which can be easily adopted which will be outlined during the workshop. Please note that this workshop should not be combined with workshops looking at measurement of IT greenhouse gas emissions to meet carbon trading scheme requirements. Important as those measures are, they result in an entirely different discussion involving a different set of stakeholders. This workshop is about what can be done immediately and work going on in the field at this time. Relates to theme - Critical Internet Resources If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? If not, who do you think should organize it? We would seek to have involved represntatives of Google and VMWare, a representative of the Internet Architecture Board, a representative of CANARIE (Canada) who have a significant program in this area, IISD, APC and others. 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 16:26:26 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:56:26 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" Message-ID: <369C43639CFF4C5C94BC405AE8D24317@GINGERLAPTOP> I would like to propose that the IGC make a short, direct statement to the OC in May, gently, or non-aggressively requesting that Internet Rights and Principles be given a priority placement in the IGF 2009 for establishing a definition of the phrase, in response to the statement in the Programme Paper (http://igf.wgig.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.23.03.2009.rtf) that: "While some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." Personally it seems to me that if an issue as important as this one cannot be discussed because a definition does not exists, then that means it is past time to clarify the meaning of the phrase. The section on Critical Internet Resources includes the note that "There was a general agreement that no topic, however contentious, should be excluded from the discussions under this heading. It was recognized that this cluster of issues could benefit most from an open discussion." I think we should find a way to ask for that same qualification for Internet Rights and Principles. If we have a statement prepared before April 21st, it could be sent to the IGF Secretariat for consideration in the revised version of the Programme. Any thoughts? Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 17:09:22 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:09:22 +1000 Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" In-Reply-To: <369C43639CFF4C5C94BC405AE8D24317@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: I agree Ginger Let's ge some specific words together along the lines you have mentioned. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: 16 April 2009 06:26 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" I would like to propose that the IGC make a short, direct statement to the OC in May, gently, or non-aggressively requesting that Internet Rights and Principles be given a priority placement in the IGF 2009 for establishing a definition of the phrase, in response to the statement in the Programme Paper (http://igf.wgig.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.23.03.2009.rtf) that: "While some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." Personally it seems to me that if an issue as important as this one cannot be discussed because a definition does not exists, then that means it is past time to clarify the meaning of the phrase. The section on Critical Internet Resources includes the note that "There was a general agreement that no topic, however contentious, should be excluded from the discussions under this heading. It was recognized that this cluster of issues could benefit most from an open discussion." I think we should find a way to ask for that same qualification for Internet Rights and Principles. If we have a statement prepared before April 21st, it could be sent to the IGF Secretariat for consideration in the revised version of the Programme. Any thoughts? Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 15 17:53:16 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:53:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet In-Reply-To: References: <369C43639CFF4C5C94BC405AE8D24317@GINGERLAPTOP>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DF2F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I also agree. This fits with my basic principle for IGF - whatever it is 'some' people don;t want discussed, is exactly what should be discussed. If only to discover if there are real disagreements or just mutual misunderstandings. (As was largely the case with Critical Internet Resources, in my opinion.) With Internet rights and principles there may be real differences, but that remains to be seen. Lee ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ginger Paque' Subject: RE: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" I agree Ginger Let's ge some specific words together along the lines you have mentioned. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: 16 April 2009 06:26 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" I would like to propose that the IGC make a short, direct statement to the OC in May, gently, or non-aggressively requesting that Internet Rights and Principles be given a priority placement in the IGF 2009 for establishing a definition of the phrase, in response to the statement in the Programme Paper (http://igf.wgig.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.23.03.2009.rtf) that: “While some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and principles’ as a cross-cutting theme, the view was also held that there was no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting.” Personally it seems to me that if an issue as important as this one cannot be discussed because a definition does not exists, then that means it is past time to clarify the meaning of the phrase. The section on Critical Internet Resources includes the note that “There was a general agreement that no topic, however contentious, should be excluded from the discussions under this heading. It was recognized that this cluster of issues could benefit most from an open discussion.” I think we should find a way to ask for that same qualification for Internet Rights and Principles. If we have a statement prepared before April 21st, it could be sent to the IGF Secretariat for consideration in the revised version of the Programme. Any thoughts? Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 23:33:04 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:03:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] NN Workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BAD80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49E6A6F0.3020303@itforchange.net> Thanks Milton for this. Some comments >While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various >approaches to NN and in particular examine how >consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in >middle income and developing countries. Relates to theme - >Openness I dont think we need to be highlighting the argument that service providers take against developing NN frameworks- that of investments needed for laying infrastructure. They are powerful enough to do it themselves. That argument in my view doesn't hold, but I will not argue on that. It is enough that this is the service providers' argument and the public interest argument is more about people's right to access information, applications, services etc of their choice, and of media diversity etc. Why should we not be highlighting these public interest arguments rather than the regressive one - we need to fund investments in new infrastructure, so let us charge people as we want. Why would for instance we not instead say that we will examine the NN implications on content and media diversity and other rights of the people and communities. Moreover there is something inherently repugnant about speaking about governance systems of the North alongwith needs/ infrastructure of the South...I am sorry to appear a bit too strong on this, but this is patronizing. South is as concerned about governance systems as it is about infrastructure, pl get this clearly. Milton, you are always concerned about how we should discuss governance issues more than infrastructural issues at the IGF, so why did it not occur to you to frame it something like this - how the emerging NN consensus in the North affects the South, when South is hardly included/participating in the global NN debates, while the NN regimes that will emerge from a North-based consensus will almost definitely become a global default, and thus be forced on the South. I would also *not* like to start with - NN is confusing, which again is more the argument/ strategy of those opposed to NN who will like to use the alleged 'confusion' not to have anything done on NN. I would rather like to start with something like - There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others effected by it. The fact that there is an increasing recognition of such an urgency - seen from many political and legislative articulations of it in many countries - is at least as much of a fact as the supposed 'confusion' around NN. Whether we begin our workshop proposal statement one way or the other depends on our political proclivities. And it is my understanding that most IGC members prefer some kind of recognition of NN principles, rather than wanting to further add to the - deliberately whipped up - impression of 'great confusion around NN'. This is, in nay case, after all not an academic workshop. Though of course we will give platform to all views but 'confusion around NN' doesnt appear to be the right point of departure. If there is indeed so much confusion how did most relevant actors in Norway agree to a set of NN principles. Why should then we as a progressive civil society group want to keep harping on the 'confusion around NN'. I propose the following text. "There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates." The rest can be as it is. Thanks parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > With thanks to Parminder and Adam. For discussion and additions of examples (other countries) > > Title > Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > Network neutrality (NN) can be controversial because there are conflicting ideas about what it is and what obligations it imposes on service providers. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN and in particular examine how consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in middle income and developing countries. Relates to theme -Openness > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it? > > Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 16 00:13:25 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:43:25 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> Bill, Thanks for your comments. No it is never too late. In any case we are hardly in a position to submit these proposals on IGC's behalf without some kind of discussion on them. >The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently democratic, ergo we're >advocating DI. Democratic above clearly refers to the process of internationalization, to put in a caveat for those who easy conflate internationalism just with inter-country arrangements. To that extent, it is beside the point that I really do think that the present arrangements are not democratic enough. Were they democratic, why would we want to seek any change/ evolution at all. Isnt making all political decision making democratic our basic political objective. As pointed out in an email to Milton, democratic is always meant in its nuanced evolutionary meanings - of constitutionalism, rights, minority protection, civil society participation for deepening democracy etc etc. I am unable to understand why the term multistakeholderism as a form of governance, with all its deep structural problems and with almost no historical and philosophical/ political theoretical examination of the concept, can be used so unproblematically, while use of the richly-historical term 'democratic' needs to present so many defenses. >Wouldn't it be helpful for us to specify which mechanisms we are talking about rather than leaving it abstract, and what exactly democratic would mean in these >contexts? If we accept that US's unilateral political control on a lot of aspects of IG, and that of rich country clubs on many other aspects, is not democratic and fair, and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong sentiment that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we will need to come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire to look for them depends on the strength of our belief and conviction in the above regard. But if I do have to suggest some models, models 1, 3 and 4 suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to start from. Does IGF have a role, as suggested by a recent position paper of the IGP? Anything, as long as we are sure that the point where we are is not acceptable. However, if you wish we give a greater clarity about the mechanisms we are talking about, i will like to hear your formulation of them. Parminder William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Late to the party, I recognize there's been back and forth on this, > but would just like to interject a small suggestion. > > On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Parminder wrote: >> >> As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social >> structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, >> democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing >> imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain >> historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities >> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >> participative political governance by all people of the world, who >> are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of >> evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. >> > > On Apr 14, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> There is another, deeper problem with Parminder's formulation. When >>> we talk about "participative political governance" we need to >>> explicitly recognize that "democratic" governance must always take >>> place within a framework of protected rights of individuals. >>> Majorities can be as oppressive as unaccountable tyrants, we all >>> know. So while I prefer Parminder's reference to "participative >>> political governance by all people of the world" to vague references >>> to "multistakeholderism" I think that will sound threatening to many >>> people unless we also make it clear that such governance is limited >>> and contained by rights and freedoms _from_ governance in the >>> appropriate areas. >> >> I very much agree with the substance of your posting. However, when I >> mention 'democratic' in the title itself i think it obviously >> includes the nunace and evovled meaning of democracy as generaly >> understood - which included constitutionalism (that is why we >> advocate for adopting Internet rights and principles), human rights, >> structured participation etc - it is not about simple tyranny of numbers. > > The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to > suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently > democratic, ergo we're advocating DI. Wouldn't it be helpful for us > to specify which mechanisms we are talking about rather than leaving > it abstract, and what exactly democratic would mean in these contexts? > The latter is of course quite a conundrum in all discussions of > global governance; the WSIS principles' invocation of the term is > hardly a source of philosophical clarity (at the time the background > concern was to increase the role of the ITU, which sort of conflated > multilateralism with democratic); the WGIG couldn't figure this out > and gave up; and not everyone would necessarily understand the term as > you define it above. > > Can we be more precise on what we would all be contending with this > proposal? > > Best, > > Bill > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > New book: /Governing Global Electronic Networks,/ > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 16 04:49:08 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:49:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >I agree Ginger > >Let's ge some specific words together along the lines you have mentioned. > > Agree, but let's not just wait for the consultation. IGC emphasized rights repeatedly last year. There was support (I think I remember correctly) during the September consultation in particular (the old bill-of-rights caucus and I think govt of Italy.) I hope our MAG members can raise again on the MAG list now. Keep the discussion going on the MAG list. Adam > >Ian Peter >PO Box 429 >Bangalow NSW 2479 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com > > > > > >From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >Sent: 16 April 2009 06:26 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in >May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" > >I would like to propose that the IGC make a >short, direct statement to the OC in May, >gently, or non-aggressively requesting that >Internet Rights and Principles be given a >priority placement in the IGF 2009 for >establishing a definition of the phrase, in >response to the statement in the Programme Paper >(http://igf.wgig.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.23.03.2009.rtf) >that: > >³While some favoured the inclusion of ŒInternet >rights and principles¹ as a cross-cutting theme, >the view was also held that there was no >established definition of this theme and that >therefore it should not be discussed at the >Sharm El Sheikh meeting.² > >Personally it seems to me that if an issue as >important as this one cannot be discussed >because a definition does not exists, then that >means it is past time to clarify the meaning of >the phrase. > >The section on Critical Internet Resources >includes the note that ³There was a general >agreement that no topic, however contentious, >should be excluded from the discussions under >this heading. It was recognized that this >cluster of issues could benefit most from an >open discussion.² > >I think we should find a way to ask for that >same qualification for Internet Rights and >Principles. > >If we have a statement prepared before April >21st, it could be sent to the IGF Secretariat >for consideration in the revised version of the >Programme. > >Any thoughts? > > > >Ginger > >Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque >DiploFoundation >Coordinator IGCBP 09 > >www.diplomacy.edu/ig >VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Apr 16 04:53:03 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:53:03 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Parminder wrote: > Bill, Thanks for your comments. No it is never too late. In any case > we are hardly in a position to submit these proposals on IGC's > behalf without some kind of discussion on them. > > >The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to > suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently > democratic, ergo we're >advocating DI. > > Democratic above clearly refers to the process of > internationalization, to put in a caveat for those who easy > conflate internationalism just with inter-country arrangements. To > that extent, it is beside the point that I really do think that the > present arrangements are not democratic enough. Were they > democratic, why would we want to seek any change/ evolution at all. > Isnt making all political decision making democratic our basic > political objective. As pointed out in an email to Milton, > democratic is always meant in its nuanced evolutionary meanings - > of constitutionalism, rights, minority protection, civil society > participation for deepening democracy etc etc. > > I am unable to understand why the term multistakeholderism as a form > of governance, with all its deep structural problems and with > almost no historical and philosophical/ political theoretical > examination of the concept, can be used so unproblematically, while > use of the richly-historical term 'democratic' needs to present so > many defenses. I would be the last person to claim that multistakeholderism has a precise and globally shared meaning, but that's another matter entirely. Re: democratic, there are different understandings of the term, so for example the various meanings you and Milton are loading into it would not be accepted by many political scientists, constitutional lawyers, or for that matter governments. The problem becomes even more difficult when we move from national polities with elected representatives etc to international institutions, especially intergovernmentals. And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present arrangements are not democratic enough. There are a lot of other bases upon which to critique and call for reforms. We can agree to disagree, we're not going to sort out our or other IGC members' respective understandings in time to submit a consensual proposal by Monday. The main point is that a caucus submission ought to reflect at least some rough consensus on the core concepts and claims, and while there doesn't seem to be widespread yearning to engage on this, I strongly suspect that if we had time for a proper discussion considerable variation of views would become evident. Personally, I'd be more comfortable with framing the first half in terms of participatory/inclusive/accountable internationalization. These terms are themselves difficult enough, but there's at least greater intersubjective understanding of their meanings. > > > >Wouldn't it be helpful for us to specify which mechanisms we are > talking about rather than leaving it abstract, and what exactly > democratic would mean in these >contexts? > > If we accept that US's unilateral political control on a lot of > aspects of IG, and that of rich country clubs on many other aspects, > is not democratic and fair, I and I suspect a lot of other readers would need to know which aspects exactly we're talking about in order to assess this claim. And 'democratic' would remain a problematic baseline. 'Fair,' if taken to refer to the distribution of costs and benefits, probably would be easier to agree on for at least some of us. Either way, I don't understand the reluctance to specify the scope of the claim here. I'm not just being picky or trying to frustrate you, I'm actually having trouble imagining what a productive workshop discussion would look like without a clear specification of the subject matter. > and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong > sentiment that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we > will need to come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire to > look for them depends on the strength of our belief and conviction > in the above regard. But if I do have to suggest some models, > models 1, 3 and 4 suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to start from. The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this indicates what the intended scope is. You're proposing the ws be about ICANN 'oversight' then? > Does IGF have a role, as suggested by a recent position paper of the > IGP? Anything, as long as we are sure that the point where we are is > not acceptable. > > However, if you wish we give a greater clarity about the mechanisms > we are talking about, i will like to hear your formulation of them. If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd call it a ws on "Inclusive Internationalization of ICANN Oversight." But then I'd also imagine that at least some caucus members would question whether that's really a topic on which we have enough agreement or can have a non-retro discussion. Either way, I'm just asking that if we submit something as a collective caucus proposal, we all actually understand what we're proposing, per previous practice. For me at least your initial framing was too abstract to evaluate, much less organize. So let's say clearly what we mean and see if folks agree with it. If they do, fine. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Thu Apr 16 04:56:30 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:56:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding References: Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2CDE@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> I agree too. The Internet Rights and Principles is also drafting a contribution. I'm thinking it's best to have 2 separate comments, one from the caucus and one from the coalition, rather than signing the same statement? I particularly like Ginger's comment about the importance of having space to establish a definition of the theme if that is the reason for it not being included in the programme. A separate point - we should also be thinking of human rights as a cross cutting theme in all of our workshop proposals, and in activities related to the IGF. All of the IGF themes have a rights dimension, and it would be great to be thinking about how to mainstream consideration of rights actively within these. Thanks, Lisa ________________________________ From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thu 16/04/2009 09:49 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding >I agree Ginger > >Let's ge some specific words together along the lines you have mentioned. > > Agree, but let's not just wait for the consultation. IGC emphasized rights repeatedly last year. There was support (I think I remember correctly) during the September consultation in particular (the old bill-of-rights caucus and I think govt of Italy.) I hope our MAG members can raise again on the MAG list now. Keep the discussion going on the MAG list. Adam > >Ian Peter >PO Box 429 >Bangalow NSW 2479 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com > > > > > >From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >Sent: 16 April 2009 06:26 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in >May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" > >I would like to propose that the IGC make a >short, direct statement to the OC in May, >gently, or non-aggressively requesting that >Internet Rights and Principles be given a >priority placement in the IGF 2009 for >establishing a definition of the phrase, in >response to the statement in the Programme Paper >(http://igf.wgig.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.23.03.2009.rtf) >that: > >³While some favoured the inclusion of OEInternet >rights and principles¹ as a cross-cutting theme, >the view was also held that there was no >established definition of this theme and that >therefore it should not be discussed at the >Sharm El Sheikh meeting.² > >Personally it seems to me that if an issue as >important as this one cannot be discussed >because a definition does not exists, then that >means it is past time to clarify the meaning of >the phrase. > >The section on Critical Internet Resources >includes the note that ³There was a general >agreement that no topic, however contentious, >should be excluded from the discussions under >this heading. It was recognized that this >cluster of issues could benefit most from an >open discussion.² > >I think we should find a way to ask for that >same qualification for Internet Rights and >Principles. > >If we have a statement prepared before April >21st, it could be sent to the IGF Secretariat >for consideration in the revised version of the >Programme. > >Any thoughts? > > > >Ginger > >Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque >DiploFoundation >Coordinator IGCBP 09 > >www.diplomacy.edu/ig >VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7539 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Apr 16 05:14:28 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:14:28 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <49E6F6F4.1070105@wzb.eu> Hi, I very much agree with Bill here. "Democratic" isn't a category I would use for the Internet governance arrangements. For me, democratic procedures are rooted in the constitution of the nation state and they refer to specific practices and principles that are implemented nowhere but on the national level. In my understanding, we are aiming at developing international substitutes for democratic institutions. I also agree with Bill that we have probably very different views on this issue and that it is unlikely that we find an agreement within a few days. Like Bill, I would suggest we stick to terms such as "participatory/inclusive/accountable internationalization". Best, jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> Bill, Thanks for your comments. No it is never too late. In any case >> we are hardly in a position to submit these proposals on IGC's behalf >> without some kind of discussion on them. >> >> >The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to >> suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently >> democratic, ergo we're >advocating DI. >> >> Democratic above clearly refers to the process of >> internationalization, to put in a caveat for those who easy >> conflate internationalism just with inter-country arrangements. To >> that extent, it is beside the point that I really do think that the >> present arrangements are not democratic enough. Were they >> democratic, why would we want to seek any change/ evolution at all. >> Isnt making all political decision making democratic our basic >> political objective. As pointed out in an email to Milton, democratic >> is always meant in its nuanced evolutionary meanings - of >> constitutionalism, rights, minority protection, civil society >> participation for deepening democracy etc etc. >> >> I am unable to understand why the term multistakeholderism as a form >> of governance, with all its deep structural problems and with almost >> no historical and philosophical/ political theoretical examination of >> the concept, can be used so unproblematically, while use of the >> richly-historical term 'democratic' needs to present so many defenses. > > I would be the last person to claim that multistakeholderism has a > precise and globally shared meaning, but that's another matter entirely. > Re: democratic, there are different understandings of the term, so for > example the various meanings you and Milton are loading into it would > not be accepted by many political scientists, constitutional lawyers, or > for that matter governments. The problem becomes even more difficult > when we move from national polities with elected representatives etc to > international institutions, especially intergovernmentals. And re: the > above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution necessarily are > grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present arrangements are > not democratic enough. There are a lot of other bases upon which to > critique and call for reforms. > > We can agree to disagree, we're not going to sort out our or other IGC > members' respective understandings in time to submit a consensual > proposal by Monday. The main point is that a caucus submission ought to > reflect at least some rough consensus on the core concepts and claims, > and while there doesn't seem to be widespread yearning to engage on > this, I strongly suspect that if we had time for a proper discussion > considerable variation of views would become evident. > > Personally, I'd be more comfortable with framing the first half in terms > of participatory/inclusive/accountable internationalization. These > terms are themselves difficult enough, but there's at least greater > intersubjective understanding of their meanings. >> >> >> >Wouldn't it be helpful for us to specify which mechanisms we are >> talking about rather than leaving it abstract, and what exactly >> democratic would mean in these >contexts? >> >> If we accept that US's unilateral political control on a lot of >> aspects of IG, and that of rich country clubs on many other aspects, >> is not democratic and fair, > > I and I suspect a lot of other readers would need to know which aspects > exactly we're talking about in order to assess this claim. And > 'democratic' would remain a problematic baseline. 'Fair,' if taken to > refer to the distribution of costs and benefits, probably would be > easier to agree on for at least some of us. Either way, I don't > understand the reluctance to specify the scope of the claim here. I'm > not just being picky or trying to frustrate you, I'm actually having > trouble imagining what a productive workshop discussion would look like > without a clear specification of the subject matter. > >> and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong sentiment >> that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we will need to >> come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire to look for them >> depends on the strength of our belief and conviction in the above >> regard. But if I do have to suggest some models, models 1, 3 and 4 >> suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to start from. > > The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this indicates > what the intended scope is. You're proposing the ws be about ICANN > 'oversight' then? > >> Does IGF have a role, as suggested by a recent position paper of the >> IGP? Anything, as long as we are sure that the point where we are is >> not acceptable. >> >> However, if you wish we give a greater clarity about the mechanisms we >> are talking about, i will like to hear your formulation of them. > > If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd call it a ws on "Inclusive > Internationalization of ICANN Oversight." But then I'd also imagine > that at least some caucus members would question whether that's really a > topic on which we have enough agreement or can have a non-retro > discussion. Either way, I'm just asking that if we submit something as a > collective caucus proposal, we all actually understand what we're > proposing, per previous practice. For me at least your initial framing > was too abstract to evaluate, much less organize. So let's say clearly > what we mean and see if folks agree with it. If they do, fine. > > Best, > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pgo at info.fundp.ac.be Thu Apr 16 05:23:39 2009 From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe goujon) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:23:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] urgent VACANCY FOR RESEARCHER (philosophy) ON ICT ETHICS AND GOVERNANCE IN NAMUR, BELGIUM 34 month Message-ID: <49E6F91B.1010904@info.fundp.ac.be> > Thanks to diffuse this message to people that might be interested > > **Cellule Interfacultaire de Technology Assessment, specialized in the > philosophical, ethical and social evaluation of communication and > information technologies > > **engages > > Under the direction of Prof. Philippe Goujon * > * ( > http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html ) > > > **_A researcher (24 months 100% - M/F) > ** > *beginning of june 2009 * > > > **Research project * > > Research lies within the scope of two European projects. Those > projects investigate ethical governance in EU research projects with > the goal of providing a framework for improved governance mechanisms > that will address potential ethical issues arising from new and > emerging technologies. Studying current governance arrangements in > actual ICT projects (and in particular in Ambient Intelligence > project) will help to produce a better understanding of the efficiency > and limits of current ethics governance. This will be applied to the > relevant ethical issues identified which will lead to a recommendation > of successful governance arrangements that will address ethical issues > in emerging ICTs before or as they arise. The recommendations for > individual issues will be used to develop general policy recommendations. > > The researcher's work will include: Review of ICT ethics governance - > Research on ICT ethics governance in current European projects - > Evaluation of effectiveness of current governance arrangements - > Application of suitable governance arrangements to most relevant > issues identified - Evaluation of viability of suggested governance > arrangements > > **Qualifications* > *_/* high level master(orPh.d. ) from philosophy or social sciences > (with a good knowledge concerning ethics) with a strong interest in > the problems involved in social integration, ethics and the > governorship of new technologies. > > **Necessary qualities ** > > · available, open-minded; > · Scientific rigor and motivation for research; > · Efficiency in the work and capacity to understand theoretical > developments; > · Ability to follow orders; > · Excellent spoken and written English; > · Perfect knowledge of power point; > · Excellent spoken and written English. > > > **Environment of research * > *- Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix > (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/) > - Computer sciences department (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/inf > > ) > - an international network of 15 European labs expert in the field > > > * > *Procedure of recruitment * > *CV > Interview (tel) > Test > > CV and accompanying letter of motivation to be sent **before 1st may* > (but the sooner is better), 2009 _by post or fax_* to > > Professor Philippe Goujon > rue Grandgagnage, 21 > 5000 - Namur ? Belgium > E-mail : pgo at info.fundp.ac.be > > Phone (Cellular) : +32 497 03 50 12 > Fax : +32 81 72 49 67 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: pgo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 16 06:05:53 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:05:53 +0200 Subject: AW: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> <49E6F6F4.1070105@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DEB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeanettes and Bills approach has my support wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Do 16.04.2009 11:14 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Cc: Parminder Betreff: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of Hi, I very much agree with Bill here. "Democratic" isn't a category I would use for the Internet governance arrangements. For me, democratic procedures are rooted in the constitution of the nation state and they refer to specific practices and principles that are implemented nowhere but on the national level. In my understanding, we are aiming at developing international substitutes for democratic institutions. I also agree with Bill that we have probably very different views on this issue and that it is unlikely that we find an agreement within a few days. Like Bill, I would suggest we stick to terms such as "participatory/inclusive/accountable internationalization". Best, jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Parminder wrote: > >> Bill, Thanks for your comments. No it is never too late. In any case >> we are hardly in a position to submit these proposals on IGC's behalf >> without some kind of discussion on them. >> >> >The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to >> suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently >> democratic, ergo we're >advocating DI. >> >> Democratic above clearly refers to the process of >> internationalization, to put in a caveat for those who easy >> conflate internationalism just with inter-country arrangements. To >> that extent, it is beside the point that I really do think that the >> present arrangements are not democratic enough. Were they >> democratic, why would we want to seek any change/ evolution at all. >> Isnt making all political decision making democratic our basic >> political objective. As pointed out in an email to Milton, democratic >> is always meant in its nuanced evolutionary meanings - of >> constitutionalism, rights, minority protection, civil society >> participation for deepening democracy etc etc. >> >> I am unable to understand why the term multistakeholderism as a form >> of governance, with all its deep structural problems and with almost >> no historical and philosophical/ political theoretical examination of >> the concept, can be used so unproblematically, while use of the >> richly-historical term 'democratic' needs to present so many defenses. > > I would be the last person to claim that multistakeholderism has a > precise and globally shared meaning, but that's another matter entirely. > Re: democratic, there are different understandings of the term, so for > example the various meanings you and Milton are loading into it would > not be accepted by many political scientists, constitutional lawyers, or > for that matter governments. The problem becomes even more difficult > when we move from national polities with elected representatives etc to > international institutions, especially intergovernmentals. And re: the > above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution necessarily are > grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present arrangements are > not democratic enough. There are a lot of other bases upon which to > critique and call for reforms. > > We can agree to disagree, we're not going to sort out our or other IGC > members' respective understandings in time to submit a consensual > proposal by Monday. The main point is that a caucus submission ought to > reflect at least some rough consensus on the core concepts and claims, > and while there doesn't seem to be widespread yearning to engage on > this, I strongly suspect that if we had time for a proper discussion > considerable variation of views would become evident. > > Personally, I'd be more comfortable with framing the first half in terms > of participatory/inclusive/accountable internationalization. These > terms are themselves difficult enough, but there's at least greater > intersubjective understanding of their meanings. >> >> >> >Wouldn't it be helpful for us to specify which mechanisms we are >> talking about rather than leaving it abstract, and what exactly >> democratic would mean in these >contexts? >> >> If we accept that US's unilateral political control on a lot of >> aspects of IG, and that of rich country clubs on many other aspects, >> is not democratic and fair, > > I and I suspect a lot of other readers would need to know which aspects > exactly we're talking about in order to assess this claim. And > 'democratic' would remain a problematic baseline. 'Fair,' if taken to > refer to the distribution of costs and benefits, probably would be > easier to agree on for at least some of us. Either way, I don't > understand the reluctance to specify the scope of the claim here. I'm > not just being picky or trying to frustrate you, I'm actually having > trouble imagining what a productive workshop discussion would look like > without a clear specification of the subject matter. > >> and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong sentiment >> that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we will need to >> come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire to look for them >> depends on the strength of our belief and conviction in the above >> regard. But if I do have to suggest some models, models 1, 3 and 4 >> suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to start from. > > The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this indicates > what the intended scope is. You're proposing the ws be about ICANN > 'oversight' then? > >> Does IGF have a role, as suggested by a recent position paper of the >> IGP? Anything, as long as we are sure that the point where we are is >> not acceptable. >> >> However, if you wish we give a greater clarity about the mechanisms we >> are talking about, i will like to hear your formulation of them. > > If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd call it a ws on "Inclusive > Internationalization of ICANN Oversight." But then I'd also imagine > that at least some caucus members would question whether that's really a > topic on which we have enough agreement or can have a non-retro > discussion. Either way, I'm just asking that if we submit something as a > collective caucus proposal, we all actually understand what we're > proposing, per previous practice. For me at least your initial framing > was too abstract to evaluate, much less organize. So let's say clearly > what we mean and see if folks agree with it. If they do, fine. > > Best, > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 16 06:49:50 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:49:50 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0EA0E33E12454596AA602267E223107A@IAN> Let me have one last go at this to see if we can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the following draft works, or possible amendments that might make it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints we have on this subject - that is going to require removing some of the concepts which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement I've changed the original text quite liberally! Let me know if this works Title Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 08:08:13 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:38:13 -0430 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles" Message-ID: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and meetings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 16 08:16:26 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:16:26 +0100 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet In-Reply-To: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the opinion of a minority of MAG members. jeanette Ginger Paque wrote: > Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme > Paper: “....Some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and > principles’ as a cross-cutting theme”. This concurs with the widespread > support for this concept from various stakeholder groups at the February > open consultations. > > > > However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme this > year on the grounds that there is “no established definition of this > theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El > Sheikh meeting.” > > > > We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the > MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been > expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the > Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a > reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this > concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include > a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in preparation > for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and meetings. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 16 08:31:53 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:31:53 -0300 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet In-Reply-To: <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), > > there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and > even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote > from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. > > It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and > principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the > opinion of a minority of MAG members. > > jeanette > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >> >> >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >> Paper: “....Some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and >> principles’ as a cross-cutting theme”. This concurs with the >> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >> at the February open consultations. >> >> >> >> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >> this year on the grounds that there is “no established definition of >> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >> El Sheikh meeting.” >> >> >> >> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >> meetings. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 16 08:30:00 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:30:00 -0300 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet In-Reply-To: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49E724C8.1040107@rits.org.br> Unless people think we need to "intellecuatlize" it more (some of our discussions get really long because of eventual urges of "intellectual preciosism"), I agree with it. We should, once agreed, make sure it reaches our civil society members who will be at the May meeting (and of course hope they agree with it as well). We of course will face strong opposition from the Chinese government representative, which for the most part motivated the secretariat's curious reasoning for withdrawal Ginger has pointed out. frt rgds --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme Paper: > "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a > cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this > concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. > > > > However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme this year > on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and > that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." > > > > We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG > revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given > that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 > and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, > if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within > IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish > this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future > debates and meetings. > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 09:40:09 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:40:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC WSIS Forum event? In-Reply-To: References: <5638C5AF8E535C4C9F06DC42D7E9A56C057EF4ED@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> Message-ID: Hi all, this suggestion is positive. I will be in Geneva since 16th may and I will take part IN WSIS forum and UNCTAD event. Baudouin 2009/4/15 William Drake > Hi, > I don't recall whether this has been raised here before, but people who are > still subscribed to the old WSIS-CS list will know that UNCTAD and ITU > staff say it is possible for organizations to put together side events > during the upcoming WSIS Forum in Geneva. Apparently Thursday 21st has been > set aside for thematic workshops and it looks like there are still a number > of open slots. The IGC could do something on a hot topic---in a space where > a lot of reps from most governments, including a lot of non-IGF regulars, > will be milling around----if enough of us will be staying in town to have > critical mass (alas, it's the following week from the IGF consultation)... > > If anyone is interested and available, let's conspire. > > Best, > > Bill > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: * > *Date: *April 15, 2009 2:30:33 PM GMT+02:00 > *To: *, > *Cc: *plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org, discuss at un-gaid.org, > plenary at wsis-cs.org > *Subject: **Re: [gaid-discuss] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Digital Solidarity Fund > in risk of disappearing: action required* > > Dear Colleagues, > > Thank you very much Charles for bringing this possibility to the attention. > Indeed, format of the WSIS Forum 2009 does give the possibility of having > kickoff meetings as well as side events. In case you would be interested in > organizing kick off meeting (10 people max) we will arrange room for you. If > possible please fill in attached form and send it to me. > > There is always a possibility of having a dedicated special session to be > held on 21 May 2009, the day dedicated to the thematic workshops/sessions. > The capacity of the available rooms is up to 100. > > In case you would need any further information regarding the meeting please > do not hesitate to let me know. > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2009/forum/geneva/index.html > > With kind regards, > > *Jaroslaw K. PONDER* > *---------------------------------------------------------- > Strategy and Policy Coordinator > *International Telecommunication Union > Place des Nations > 1211 Geneva 20 > Switzerland > Tel.: 00 41 22 730 6065 > Fax.: 00 41 22 733 7256 > E-mail: Jaroslaw.Ponder at itu.int > Web: http://www.itu.int/csd > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Charles Geiger [mailto:Charles.Geiger at unctad.org > ] > *Sent:* mercredi, 15. avril 2009 12:28 > *To:* Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space > *Cc:* discuss at un-gaid.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; > plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org; Ponder, Jaroslaw > *Subject:* Fw: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Digital Solidarity Fund in risk of > disappearing: action required > > > Dear all > > With reference to the last para below, I would like to inform you that > short private meetings or short parallel meetings can take place during the > WSIS Forum, depending on room availablilty. If your organization would need > a room for such a meeting, please contact jaroslaw.ponder at itu.int . > > Charles Geiger > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr http://educticafrique.ning.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5442 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Apr 16 09:49:51 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:49:51 +0100 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet In-Reply-To: <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <49E7377F.9090000@wzb.eu> Carlos Afonso wrote: > Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning > derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be > more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. Hi Carlos, we agree on the conclusion. I just tried to caution against preaching to the choir. The majority of MAG members doesn't share the opinion that rights and principles shouldn't be on the agenda. jeanette > > --c.a. > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), >> >> there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and >> even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote >> from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. >> >> It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and >> principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the >> opinion of a minority of MAG members. >> >> jeanette >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>> Paper: “....Some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and >>> principles’ as a cross-cutting theme”. This concurs with the >>> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >>> at the February open consultations. >>> >>> >>> >>> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >>> this year on the grounds that there is “no established definition of >>> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >>> El Sheikh meeting.” >>> >>> >>> >>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >>> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >>> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >>> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >>> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >>> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >>> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >>> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >>> meetings. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 16 09:49:48 2009 From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe goujon) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] urgent VACANCY FOR RESEARCHER (philosophy) ON ICT ETHICS AND GOVERNANCE IN NAMUR, BELGIUM 34 month Message-ID: <49E7377C.2080104@info.fundp.ac.be> > Thanks to diffuse this message to people that might be interested > > **Cellule Interfacultaire de Technology Assessment, specialized in the > philosophical, ethical and social evaluation of communication and > information technologies > > **engages > > Under the direction of Prof. Philippe Goujon * > * ( > http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html ) > > > **_A researcher (24 months 100% - M/F) > ** > *beginning of june 2009 * > > > **Research project * > > Research lies within the scope of two European projects. Those > projects investigate ethical governance in EU research projects with > the goal of providing a framework for improved governance mechanisms > that will address potential ethical issues arising from new and > emerging technologies. Studying current governance arrangements in > actual ICT projects (and in particular in Ambient Intelligence > project) will help to produce a better understanding of the efficiency > and limits of current ethics governance. This will be applied to the > relevant ethical issues identified which will lead to a recommendation > of successful governance arrangements that will address ethical issues > in emerging ICTs before or as they arise. The recommendations for > individual issues will be used to develop general policy recommendations. > > The researcher's work will include: Review of ICT ethics governance - > Research on ICT ethics governance in current European projects - > Evaluation of effectiveness of current governance arrangements - > Application of suitable governance arrangements to most relevant > issues identified - Evaluation of viability of suggested governance > arrangements > > **Qualifications* > *_/* high level master(orPh.d. ) from philosophy or social sciences > (with a good knowledge concerning ethics) with a strong interest in > the problems involved in social integration, ethics and the > governorship of new technologies. > > **Necessary qualities ** > > · available, open-minded; > · Scientific rigor and motivation for research; > · Efficiency in the work and capacity to understand theoretical > developments; > · Ability to follow orders; > · Excellent spoken and written English; > · Perfect knowledge of power point; > · Excellent spoken and written English. > > > **Environment of research * > *- Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix > (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/) > - Computer sciences department (http://www.fundp.ac.be/en/inf > > ) > - an international network of 15 European labs expert in the field > > > * > *Procedure of recruitment * > *CV > Interview (tel) > Test > > CV and accompanying letter of motivation to be sent **before 1st may* > (but the sooner is better), 2009 _by post or fax_* to > > Professor Philippe Goujon > rue Grandgagnage, 21 > 5000 - Namur ? Belgium > E-mail : pgo at info.fundp.ac.be > > Phone (Cellular) : +32 497 03 50 12 > Fax : +32 81 72 49 67 -- 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 Projet IG3T : http ://www.info.fundp.ac.be/IG3T ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: pgo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available URL: From valeriab at apc.org Thu Apr 16 09:58:08 2009 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:58:08 -0500 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding In-Reply-To: <49E7377F.9090000@wzb.eu> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> <49E7377F.9090000@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi all, I agree with Carlos Afonso. We need a more proactive position for the May meetings around the issue of internet rights and principles and to further elaborate why we want it to be part of the essential debate in the IGF context. Valeria 2009/4/16 Jeanette Hofmann > > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning >> derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be >> more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. >> > > Hi Carlos, we agree on the conclusion. I just tried to caution against > preaching to the choir. The majority of MAG members doesn't share the > opinion that rights and principles shouldn't be on the agenda. > jeanette > > > >> --c.a. >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), >>> >>> there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and >>> even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote >>> from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. >>> >>> It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and >>> principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the >>> opinion of a minority of MAG members. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>>> Paper: “....Some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and >>>> principles’ as a cross-cutting theme”. This concurs with the >>>> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >>>> at the February open consultations. >>>> >>>> >>>> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >>>> this year on the grounds that there is “no established definition of >>>> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >>>> El Sheikh meeting.” >>>> >>>> >>>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >>>> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >>>> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >>>> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >>>> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >>>> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >>>> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >>>> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >>>> meetings. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 09:59:07 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:29:07 -0430 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet In-Reply-To: <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Thanks for the comments. How about this change of "decision" to "proposal"? The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. However we are concerned at the PROPOSAL to exclude it as a theme this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and meetings. Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu -----Mensaje original----- De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Abril de 2009 08:02 a.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann CC: Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter' Asunto: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), > > there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and > even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote > from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. > > It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and > principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the > opinion of a minority of MAG members. > > jeanette > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >> >> >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >> Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and >> principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the >> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >> at the February open consultations. >> >> >> >> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of >> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >> El Sheikh meeting." >> >> >> >> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >> meetings. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 17 09:16:35 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:16:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANNs CEO & President References: <5638C5AF8E535C4C9F06DC42D7E9A56C057EF4ED@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list as we all know there is a process under way to select/elect a new CEO & President for ICANN. My knowledge for the moment is that a special head hunting company was hired and a special board committee with five members (ICANN directors, chaird by the ICANN chair) is dealing with the issue. However there is only little transparency in the procress of nomination and selection so far. During the Mexico At Large Summit we called for more transparncy in ICANN procedures. I do not know what other members of the list are thinking but my understanding is that at least some transparency in the process would be important to build trust and institutional confidence into the future of ICANN. I understand very well - as a former Associated Chair of the NomCom - that some elements of the process has to be handled in a confidential way. However the CEO& President is different from an ordinary ICANN Director and it would be helpful for the whole community and the various constituencies that they are - in one way or another - informed and partly also involved in the process. My understanding of the timetable is that until the Sydney meeting there will be a shortlist and after the Sydney meeting the Board will make its decision.The CEO is elected by the Board. One idea to improve and enhance trust and transparency could be that during the forthconing Sydney meeting the shortlisted candidates are invited to present their views and visions on ICANNs operation and its future. They should be available also for a Q&A sessions to the broader ICANN community. The At Large Community would be the legtimite body to ask for such a publich hearing. It would be very consistent with what we called for in the ATLAS Mexico Declaration. 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 17 09:46:15 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:46:15 -0400 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding In-Reply-To: References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486891@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I have not carefully followed the debate leading up to this, but looking at this statement with fresh eyes, I support it! If Jeanette has any further concerns about pre-judging MAG positions, one could simply change "we are concerned at the PROPOSAL..." to "we would not support any proposals..." --MM > -----Original Message----- > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme > Paper: > "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a > cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this > concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open > consultations. > > However we are concerned at the PROPOSAL to exclude it as a theme this > year > on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and > that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." > > We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG > revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. > Given > that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras > 70 > and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. > However, > if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within > IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to > establish > this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in > future > debates and meetings. > > Ginger > > Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque > > DiploFoundation > > Coordinator IGCBP 09 > > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Abril de 2009 08:02 a.m. > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > CC: Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter' > Asunto: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding > "Internet > > Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning > derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be > more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. > > --c.a. > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), > > > > there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and > > even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote > > from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. > > > > It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and > > principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the > > opinion of a minority of MAG members. > > > > jeanette > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme > >> Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and > >> principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the > >> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups > >> at the February open consultations. > >> > >> > >> > >> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme > >> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of > >> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm > >> El Sheikh meeting." > >> > >> > >> > >> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the > >> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been > >> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the > >> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a > >> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this > >> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 > >> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in > >> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and > >> meetings. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 17 09:48:27 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:48:27 +0100 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486891@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486891@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49E888AB.40906@wzb.eu> any version sounds fine to me. jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > I have not carefully followed the debate leading up to this, but looking at this statement with fresh eyes, I support it! If Jeanette has any further concerns about pre-judging MAG positions, one could simply change "we are concerned at the PROPOSAL..." to "we would not support any proposals..." > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >> Paper: >> "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a >> cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this >> concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open >> consultations. >> >> However we are concerned at the PROPOSAL to exclude it as a theme this >> year >> on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and >> that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." >> >> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG >> revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. >> Given >> that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras >> 70 >> and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. >> However, >> if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within >> IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to >> establish >> this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in >> future >> debates and meetings. >> >> Ginger >> >> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque >> >> DiploFoundation >> >> Coordinator IGCBP 09 >> >> >> >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Abril de 2009 08:02 a.m. >> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> CC: Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter' >> Asunto: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding >> "Internet >> >> Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning >> derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be >> more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. >> >> --c.a. >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), >>> >>> there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and >>> even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote >>> from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. >>> >>> It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and >>> principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the >>> opinion of a minority of MAG members. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>>> Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and >>>> principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the >>>> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >>>> at the February open consultations. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >>>> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of >>>> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >>>> El Sheikh meeting." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >>>> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >>>> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >>>> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >>>> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >>>> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >>>> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >>>> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >>>> meetings. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 17 10:59:52 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:29:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANNs CEO & President In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5638C5AF8E535C4C9F06DC42D7E9A56C057EF4ED@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello, The position of CEO of ICANN is halfway between a Corporate and an Electoral appointment. If it were a position such as the office of a Senator or a Minister, the process would attract candidates who throw themselves up for public scrutiny for months beginning with the 'Primary' part of the process. If it were such an absolute Public Office, there would probably be a willingness to 'contest' or 'compete' for the office. This position has public responsibilities but has more features of a Corporate CEO appointment, so those qualified to offer to be candidates are likely to insist on confidentially perhaps bordering on Secrecy. If a serving CEO of a company SUCH AS Nokia Siemens or General Motors were to offer to be a candidate for the ICANN position, is it likely that we would expect them to have their names publicly thrown scrutiny in a pool of ten or more possible candidates? In all probability such candidates might prefer to keep their candidature unannounced until formally confirmed. Some might even feel uncomfortable exposing their interest to a committe of five which is too many... It depends on what traits the Community looks for. A hundred 'political' candidates might queue up for public scrutiny if ICANN is looking for a political person. On the other hand it might take a million dollars in Headhunting effort to find even one or two candidates with the right attitude, background and a sense of purpose and this class of candidates wouldn't like the Primary public screening, secondary hearing, campaign, influence, caucus, final hearing, appointment, ratification, review cycle... The community is right in its demand for transparency, but an insistence on transparency at the initial phase of the process might be counterproductive in the sense that it could discourage really qualified candidates who might prefer to be quiet about their pursuits until the time comes to make a public announcement. A 'meet the candidates' at Sydney or elsewhere could be a good idea if it works, if it is feasible, if it is acceptable by the candidates, but if it can't happen, some alternate form of transparency could be thought of by the community. Perhaps the community could ask for periodic updates from the Committee about what it can share of the progress of the process ? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com 2009/4/17 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Dear list > > as we all know there is a process under way to select/elect a new CEO & > President for ICANN. > > My knowledge for the moment is that a special head hunting company was > hired and a special board committee with five members (ICANN directors, > chaird by the ICANN chair) is dealing with the issue. However there is only > little transparency in the procress of nomination and selection so far. > > During the Mexico At Large Summit we called for more transparncy in ICANN > procedures. I do not know what other members of the list are thinking but my > understanding is that at least some transparency in the process would be > important to build trust and institutional confidence into the future of > ICANN. I understand very well - as a former Associated Chair of the NomCom - > that some elements of the process has to be handled in a confidential way. > However the CEO& President is different from an ordinary ICANN Director and > it would be helpful for the whole community and the various constituencies > that they are - in one way or another - informed and partly also involved in > the process. > > My understanding of the timetable is that until the Sydney meeting there > will be a shortlist and after the Sydney meeting the Board will make its > decision.The CEO is elected by the Board. > > One idea to improve and enhance trust and transparency could be that during > the forthconing Sydney meeting the shortlisted candidates are invited to > present their views and visions on ICANNs operation and its future. They > should be available also for a Q&A sessions to the broader ICANN community. > The At Large Community would be the legtimite body to ask for such a publich > hearing. It would be very consistent with what we called for in the ATLAS > Mexico Declaration. > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 17 13:00:55 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:30:55 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <0EA0E33E12454596AA602267E223107A@IAN> References: <0EA0E33E12454596AA602267E223107A@IAN> Message-ID: <49E8B5C7.9010100@itforchange.net> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. Would therefore prefer "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization." to be changed to "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " parminder Ian Peter wrote: > > Let me have one last go at this to see if we can get some acceptable > wording . Please let me know if the following draft works, or possible > amendments that might make it work. I'm trying to accommodate the > range of interesting viewpoints we have on this subject - that is > going to require removing some of the concepts which require further > discussion or we will not reach agreement > > > I've changed the original text quite liberally! Let me know if this works > > > *Title* > > * > Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from > where we stand today > * > > *Concise description (up to 200 words)* > > * > *The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities > around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet > has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance > could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear > by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring > technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a > key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and > accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs > of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints > and the direction in which we might move from here > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing > alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of > each. * * > > * > Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs > > ** > *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should > organize it?* > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 13 April 2009 13:07 > *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > *Subject:* [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of IG > > > This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation > workshop. > > *Title* > > * > Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way > forward from where we stand today > > * > > *Concise description (up to 200 words)* > > * > *As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social > structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, > democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing > imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political > realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes > that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related > to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance > arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing > however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical > artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it > running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative political governance by all people of the world, who > are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here > depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of > evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and > analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and > disadvantages of each. * * > > * > Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs > > ** > *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > should organize it?* > > > It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society > actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with > some civil society organizations form the North and South that > have shown interest. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Apr 17 14:55:50 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:55:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANNs CEO & President In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5638C5AF8E535C4C9F06DC42D7E9A56C057EF4ED@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at 15:16:35 on Fri, 17 Apr 2009, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >During the Mexico At Large Summit we called for more transparncy in >ICANN procedures. I do not know what other members of the list are >thinking but my understanding is that at least some transparency in the >process would be important to build trust and institutional confidence >into the future of ICANN. I understand very well - as a former >Associated Chair of the NomCom - that some elements of the process has >to be handled in a confidential way. However the CEO& President is >different from an ordinary ICANN Director and it would be helpful for >the whole community and the various constituencies that they are - in >one way or another - informed and partly also involved in the process. A first step would surely be to publish the Job Description given to the headhunters. They we would know the sort of criteria they are searching for. Has that been done? -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 15:08:56 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:38:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANNs CEO & President In-Reply-To: References: <5638C5AF8E535C4C9F06DC42D7E9A56C057EF4ED@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: http://www.icann.org/en/careers/ceo-31mar09-en.htm Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message < > 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, > at 15:16:35 on Fri, 17 Apr 2009, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> writes > >> During the Mexico At Large Summit we called for more transparncy in ICANN >> procedures. I do not know what other members of the list are thinking but my >> understanding is that at least some transparency in the process would be >> important to build trust and institutional confidence into the future of >> ICANN. I understand very well - as a former Associated Chair of the NomCom - >> that some elements of the process has to be handled in a confidential way. >> However the CEO& President is different from an ordinary ICANN Director and >> it would be helpful for the whole community and the various constituencies >> that they are - in one way or another - informed and partly also involved in >> the process. >> > > A first step would surely be to publish the Job Description given to the > headhunters. They we would know the sort of criteria they are searching for. > Has that been done? > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 17 15:11:58 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:11:58 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49E8B5C7.9010100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <11C56E0A838C4F9EAC3143FE08C2E12B@IAN> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need expressions of support for the new wording from a few of those who were not happy with the previous version if we are to submit this as an IGC proposal Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. Would therefore prefer "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization." to be changed to "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " parminder Ian Peter wrote: Let me have one last go at this to see if we can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the following draft works, or possible amendments that might make it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints we have on this subject - that is going to require removing some of the concepts which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement I've changed the original text quite liberally! Let me know if this works Title Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Fri Apr 17 17:18:25 2009 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:18:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28cfc1a40904171418x2783224av1a47363359b72962@mail.gmail.com> FYI. By the way, if you were one the civil society organizations which signed on to the Joint Statement mentioned in the ICANN Reforms article below, please check to see if I linked to your organization's website correctly. We'd like to drive some traffic to your websites, and likewise, if you could add the IGP to your blogroll/website it would be appreciated! Also, for those twittering - you can follow us at http://twitter.com/igpalert You'll get the IGP blog feed, plus breaking news, other items of interest. Have a great weekend! Cheers, Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Internet Governance Project Date: Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:04 PM Subject: [IGP-CORE] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines To: IGP at listserv.syr.edu [image: Internet Governance Project] April 17, 2009 Field Guide to ICANN Reforms (Part 4): Results are in on Noncommercial Stakeholder Group charter proposals <#120b5e6841f71821_0> GNSO Reform: Analysis of the two NCSG charter proposals<#120b5e6841f71821_1> Crypto-politics creeps into DNSSEC <#120b5e6841f71821_2> ICANN gets "securitized" <#120b5e6841f71821_3> A more detailed look at the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009<#120b5e6841f71821_4> Mueller wins 2009 ITERA Outstanding Researcher Award <#120b5e6841f71821_5> Upcoming Event: Congressional Seminar on "ICANN & Internet Governance: How Did We Get Here & Where Are We Heading?" <#120b5e6841f71821_6> Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ------------------------------ Field Guide to ICANN Reforms (Part 4): Results are in on Noncommercial Stakeholder Group charter proposals [Editors Note:* This is the fourth installment in our series looking at the ongoing ICANN reforms. If you haven't already, be sure to read Part 1, Part 2and Part 3 *] Public commentsare in on the charter proposals that will shape the reformed GNSO. The politics of GNSO reform are now abundantly clear. Noncommercial organizations and individuals from a surprisingly broad swath of transnational civil society have participated in ICANN's GNSO reform proceeding, sending in comments. And virtually all of them are supporting the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) charter proposedby the NCUC. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • GNSO Reform: Analysis of the two NCSG charter proposals The impending reform of the Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO)at ICANN, and specifically the approval of a charter for the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) is now in full swing. Last month, IP Justice's and current NCUC Chair, Robin Gross submitted the NCUC's proposed charter(and accompanying executive summaryand chart) for the NCSG to the ICANN Board. According to Gross, the proposal was developed with the input of numerous noncommercial organizations (including IGP), as well as consultations with ICANN Board members and other stakeholders. In contrast, a small band of supporters of the censorship oriented group CP-80sought to upset this consensus effort by submitting a competing charter proposal. Now IGP's Milton Mueller has submitted commentsto ICANN analyzing the two charter proposals, identifying the shortcomings of the CP-80 proposal and addressing their critique of the NCUC proposal. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Crypto-politics creeps into DNSSEC While the fight over using cryptography to protect personal communications was allegedly "won" during the late 1990s, the battle over using it to protect critical Internet resources is just heating up. News from the recent IETF in San Franciscoand RANS conference in Moscowsuggests that national crypto laws are now complicating efforts to secure the DNS. Specifically, supporters of .ru have noted that while they are interested in deploying DNSSEC, there are legal and operational constraints surrounding the current crypto specs in the standard (i.e., RSA signature and SHA digest algorithms) that could make it difficult for Russian based organizations to deploy the protocol. There are now efforts being made to introduce the Russian developed GOST family of algorithms into the protocol. [*Update:* An Internet-Drafton producing GOST signature and hash algorithms DNSKEY and RRSIG resource records for use in the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) has been submitted for adoption by the DNSEXT Working Group.] • Email to a friend• Article Search• • ICANN gets "securitized" This is no April Fool's joke: here is a bill that is almost a caricature of what the rest of the world fears about U.S. control of the Internet DNS root and ICANN. Legislation unveiled todayby Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, would require a Presidentially appointed cybersecurity advisory panel to ensure that national security would not be compromised before approving the renewal or modification of the contract between the U.S. government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. According to a summary of the bill, it would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to end its relationship with the U.S. government. ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach to cybersecurity. According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would...give the President unfettered power to shut down Internet traffic in emergencies or disconnect any critical infrastructure system or network on national security grounds." Read the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009 . • Email to a friend• Article Search• • A more detailed look at the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009 The Rockefeller-Snowe billemerges from an environment of blind hysteria around cyber-security problems that has developed in recent months. Section 2 contains 150 lines of silly hyperventilating that exaggerate the threats - but more importantly, misconceives the nature of Internet-based threats and the best way to respond to them. The bill succumbs to the tendency to take a national, hierarchical and centralized approach to problems that are best met through the organic evolution of decentralized, flexible, adapative and transnational, private sector-based cooperative solutions that leverage the peer production capabilities of the Internet. Still, it is not as bad as it could have been. The bill does not turn over cybersecurity responsibilities to the NSA, nor does it completely centralize authority in a single government agency. Instead, it creates a multistakeholder Cyber-security Advisory panel appointed by the President. Here is a section-by-section review of the most outstanding parts of the proposed law... • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Mueller wins 2009 ITERA Outstanding Researcher Award Mad props to IGP's Milton Mueller, who has been selected to receivethe 2009 International Telecommunications Education and Research Association(ITERA) Outstanding Research Award. ITERA presents the award to individuals who have demonstrated excellence in academic research related to the telecommunications disciplines through publication, peer-review, and international recognition over time. And also a tip o' the hat to Milton's colleague, Martha Garcia-Murillo, director of the M.S. in Telecommunications and Network Management program at Syracuse's iSchool, who cited the founding of the Internet Governance Project, where "researchers can follow the discussion and decisions that are made at the international level on Internet governance," among the many reasons Milton deserved this special award. Way to go! • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Upcoming Event: Congressional Seminar on "ICANN & Internet Governance: How Did We Get Here & Where Are We Heading?" IGP's Milton Mueller will be a panelist at a Congressional Seminar, *"ICANN & Internet Governance: How Did We Get Here & Where Are We Heading?,"* hosted by the Progress & Freedom Foundationon April 24, 2009 from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. You can register here. As the Internet has become the backbone of our Digital Age economy, the issue of "governance" has taken on a new importance. What's next for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-profit corporation responsible for coordinating administration of the domain name system? New developments and possible policy implications will be discussed by a panel of recognized experts, who will cover the history and evolution of ICANN and debate such topics as the proposal for new top level domains, domain name system security, and ICANN's future after the expiration of its Joint Project Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding with the Commerce Department. Other panelists include David Johnson (Visiting Professor of Law, Institute for Information Law and Policy), New York Law School and Mike Roberts (Internet Technology Policy Consultant and former President and CEO of ICANN), as well as panel moderator Michael Palage (Adjunct Fellow, The Progress & Freedom Foundation and former ICANN board member). • Email to a friend• Article Search• • ------------------------------ *Click here to safely unsubscribe nowfrom "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe * ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Apr 18 03:44:38 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:44:38 +0200 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding In-Reply-To: <49E888AB.40906@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I support the text too. Divina Le 17/04/09 15:48, « Jeanette Hofmann » a écrit : > > any version sounds fine to me. > jeanette > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I have not carefully followed the debate leading up to this, but looking at >> this statement with fresh eyes, I support it! If Jeanette has any further >> concerns about pre-judging MAG positions, one could simply change "we are >> concerned at the PROPOSAL..." to "we would not support any proposals..." >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>> Paper: >>> "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a >>> cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this >>> concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open >>> consultations. >>> >>> However we are concerned at the PROPOSAL to exclude it as a theme this >>> year >>> on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and >>> that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." >>> >>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG >>> revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. >>> Given >>> that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras >>> 70 >>> and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. >>> However, >>> if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within >>> IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to >>> establish >>> this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in >>> future >>> debates and meetings. >>> >>> Ginger >>> >>> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque >>> >>> DiploFoundation >>> >>> Coordinator IGCBP 09 >>> >>> >>> >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> -----Mensaje original----- >>> De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >>> Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Abril de 2009 08:02 a.m. >>> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> CC: Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter' >>> Asunto: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding >>> "Internet >>> >>> Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning >>> derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be >>> more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), >>>> >>>> there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and >>>> even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote >>>> from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. >>>> >>>> It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and >>>> principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the >>>> opinion of a minority of MAG members. >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>>>> Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and >>>>> principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the >>>>> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >>>>> at the February open consultations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >>>>> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of >>>>> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >>>>> El Sheikh meeting." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >>>>> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >>>>> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >>>>> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >>>>> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >>>>> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >>>>> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >>>>> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >>>>> meetings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dkissoondoyal at hotmail.com Sat Apr 18 04:01:10 2009 From: dkissoondoyal at hotmail.com (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:01:10 +0400 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding In-Reply-To: References: <49E888AB.40906@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I support as well Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: Divina MEIGS [mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr] Sent: 18 April 2009 11:45 To: Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding I support the text too. Divina Le 17/04/09 15:48, « Jeanette Hofmann » a écrit : > > any version sounds fine to me. > jeanette > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I have not carefully followed the debate leading up to this, but looking at >> this statement with fresh eyes, I support it! If Jeanette has any further >> concerns about pre-judging MAG positions, one could simply change "we are >> concerned at the PROPOSAL..." to "we would not support any proposals..." >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>> Paper: >>> "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a >>> cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this >>> concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open >>> consultations. >>> >>> However we are concerned at the PROPOSAL to exclude it as a theme this >>> year >>> on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and >>> that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." >>> >>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG >>> revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. >>> Given >>> that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras >>> 70 >>> and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. >>> However, >>> if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within >>> IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to >>> establish >>> this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in >>> future >>> debates and meetings. >>> >>> Ginger >>> >>> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque >>> >>> DiploFoundation >>> >>> Coordinator IGCBP 09 >>> >>> >>> >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> -----Mensaje original----- >>> De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >>> Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Abril de 2009 08:02 a.m. >>> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> CC: Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter' >>> Asunto: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding >>> "Internet >>> >>> Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning >>> derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be >>> more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), >>>> >>>> there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and >>>> even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote >>>> from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. >>>> >>>> It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and >>>> principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the >>>> opinion of a minority of MAG members. >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>>>> Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and >>>>> principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the >>>>> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >>>>> at the February open consultations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >>>>> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of >>>>> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >>>>> El Sheikh meeting." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >>>>> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >>>>> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >>>>> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >>>>> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >>>>> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >>>>> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >>>>> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >>>>> meetings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dave at isoc-mu.org Sat Apr 18 04:02:03 2009 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:02:03 +0400 Subject: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding In-Reply-To: References: <49E888AB.40906@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I support as well Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Divina MEIGS Sent: 18 April 2009 11:45 To: Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding I support the text too. Divina Le 17/04/09 15:48, « Jeanette Hofmann » a écrit : > > any version sounds fine to me. > jeanette > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I have not carefully followed the debate leading up to this, but looking at >> this statement with fresh eyes, I support it! If Jeanette has any further >> concerns about pre-judging MAG positions, one could simply change "we are >> concerned at the PROPOSAL..." to "we would not support any proposals..." >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>> Paper: >>> "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a >>> cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this >>> concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open >>> consultations. >>> >>> However we are concerned at the PROPOSAL to exclude it as a theme this >>> year >>> on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and >>> that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." >>> >>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG >>> revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. >>> Given >>> that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras >>> 70 >>> and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. >>> However, >>> if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within >>> IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to >>> establish >>> this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in >>> future >>> debates and meetings. >>> >>> Ginger >>> >>> Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque >>> >>> DiploFoundation >>> >>> Coordinator IGCBP 09 >>> >>> >>> >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> -----Mensaje original----- >>> De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >>> Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Abril de 2009 08:02 a.m. >>> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> CC: Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter' >>> Asunto: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding >>> "Internet >>> >>> Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning >>> derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be >>> more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), >>>> >>>> there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and >>>> even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote >>>> from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. >>>> >>>> It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and >>>> principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the >>>> opinion of a minority of MAG members. >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme >>>>> Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and >>>>> principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the >>>>> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups >>>>> at the February open consultations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme >>>>> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of >>>>> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm >>>>> El Sheikh meeting." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the >>>>> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been >>>>> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the >>>>> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a >>>>> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this >>>>> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 >>>>> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in >>>>> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and >>>>> meetings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 18 04:33:25 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:33:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 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 pavan.elena at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 04:55:24 2009 From: pavan.elena at gmail.com (Elena Pavan) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:55:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <947a5260904180155g79132fc1nf4a29557a73485f5@mail.gmail.com> congratulations! elena 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > FYI > http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 > > 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 > -- Dr. Elena Pavan DSRS University of Trento Via Verdi n. 26 38100 Trento GigaNet Secretary http://giganet.igloogroups.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 dave at isoc-mu.org Sat Apr 18 04:57:09 2009 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:57:09 +0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <947a5260904180155g79132fc1nf4a29557a73485f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <947a5260904180155g79132fc1nf4a29557a73485f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9A2D55EA0B684957AA466729476CA1FF@apollo.local> Congratulations Milton The best birthday gift you got..LOL Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal _____ From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Elena Pavan Sent: 18 April 2009 12:55 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations to Milton congratulations! elena 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" FYI http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 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 -- Dr. Elena Pavan DSRS University of Trento Via Verdi n. 26 38100 Trento GigaNet Secretary http://giganet.igloogroups.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Apr 18 07:26:03 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:26:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANNs CEO & President In-Reply-To: References: <5638C5AF8E535C4C9F06DC42D7E9A56C057EF4ED@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8PG3+RFLjb6JFApV@perry.co.uk> In message , at 00:38:56 on Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy writes >http://www.icann.org/en/careers/ceo-31mar09-en.htm If the "familiarity with Internet Technical Standards", and other ICANN mission critical elements, is something they have to demonstrate *already* in place (rather than something they could learn quickly once appointed) then this narrows the field considerably. It'll be interesting to see who they appoint. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 16:10:04 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:40:04 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding Final draft for mailling? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486891@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486891@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8846033BD04E49B78EABFC8506ABCEC0@GINGERLAPTOP> I propose that we approve this final draft for emailing to the Secretariat now: The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme Paper: "...Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open consultations. However we are concerned at the proposal to exclude it as a theme this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and meetings. Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu -----Mensaje original----- De: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Enviado el: Viernes, 17 de Abril de 2009 09:16 a.m. Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Asunto: RE: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding I have not carefully followed the debate leading up to this, but looking at this statement with fresh eyes, I support it! If Jeanette has any further concerns about pre-judging MAG positions, one could simply change "we are concerned at the PROPOSAL..." to "we would not support any proposals..." --MM > -----Original Message----- > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme > Paper: > "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and principles' as a > cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the widespread support for this > concept from various stakeholder groups at the February open > consultations. > > However we are concerned at the PROPOSAL to exclude it as a theme this > year > on the grounds that there is "no established definition of this theme and > that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting." > > We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the MAG > revisit this subject given the wide support which has been expressed. > Given > that these matters are specifically contained in the Tunis Agenda (paras > 70 > and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a reason for exclusion. > However, > if it is not possible to include this concept until it is defined within > IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 include a prominent plenary space to > establish > this definition, in preparation for more comprehensive discussions in > future > debates and meetings. > > Ginger > > Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque > > DiploFoundation > > Coordinator IGCBP 09 > > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Enviado el: Jueves, 16 de Abril de 2009 08:02 a.m. > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > CC: Ginger Paque; 'Ian Peter' > Asunto: Re: RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding > "Internet > > Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning > derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be > more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme. > > --c.a. > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March), > > > > there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and > > even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote > > from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG. > > > > It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and > > principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the > > opinion of a minority of MAG members. > > > > jeanette > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme > >> Paper: "....Some favoured the inclusion of 'Internet rights and > >> principles' as a cross-cutting theme". This concurs with the > >> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups > >> at the February open consultations. > >> > >> > >> > >> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme > >> this year on the grounds that there is "no established definition of > >> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm > >> El Sheikh meeting." > >> > >> > >> > >> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the > >> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been > >> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the > >> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a > >> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this > >> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009 > >> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in > >> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and > >> meetings. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 16:27:37 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:57:37 -0430 Subject: [governance] RP Workshop proposal final draft for consensus Message-ID: I propose this as a final draft for the RP Workshop: 1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words) Remote Participation: mapping the field, evaluation and multistakeholder involvement 2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200 words) At the IGF Hyderabad, the Remote Participation Working Group and the IGF Secretariat coordinated with local partners in the creation of IGF hubs and support for Remote Participation in the IGF main event. Since then, the debate about remote participation has gained momentum. Nonetheless, stakeholders must review: a) How they can benefit from the improvement in remote participation possibilities at the IGF; b) what their role is in the projects that aim to enhance remote participation; c) how stakeholders can work synergistically in order to implement remote participation. The workshop will discuss remote participation both from a policy (what should be done) and a best practices approach (what has been done). Policy: 1- Mapping the field of remote participation. Identify the impelling/institutional arrangements where remote participation is most needed. Identify additional prospective stakeholders that should be involved in this initiative and how to engage them. 2- Global and regional fora and issues 3- Inclusion of people from developing countries 4- Inclusion of people with disabilities. Best practices: 1- Best practices at the IGF: an evaluation (including remote hubs) 2- Guidelines for RP at the IGF: a step towards a code of best practices in the field of remote participation? 3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes (Critical Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or under the cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)? If so which one? (Please select the most appropriate one.) Capacity Building Capacity development must be seen both as a precondition and as an outcome of remote participation. The involvement of a broader range of stakeholders on the Internet Governance debate, particularly those from developing countries, will have a positive impact on their abilities to follow and to intervene in global and regional debates. Building Capacity in this area will foster access, openness and diversity in international policy processes. 4.Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the link to the report. IGC has organized the following workshops "Internet for all - Exploring a rights-based approach" Available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72 workshops/345-internet-for-all-exploring-a-rights-based-approach " The transboundary Internet: jurisdiction, control and sovereignty" Available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72 -workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-a nd-sovereignty 5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself? 1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) and the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) We suggest approaching DiploFoundation as well. DiploFoundation has organized and reported on a number of Capacity Building and other workshops. Ginger Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque DiploFoundation Coordinator IGCBP 09 www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 18 18:33:57 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:33:57 +1000 Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal - Towards a zero carbon Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <260B735E81744111A6867D0037EBA9EA@IAN> Please note I will not be submitting this as an IGC workshop at this stage due to lack of interest Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 16 April 2009 05:55 > To: 'William Drake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Workshop Proposal - Towards a zero > carbon Internet > > Bill, I was thinking more along the lines that probably well > over 90% of the worlds connected computers are in large > installations run by governments and corporations, and these > may be responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions. > There is much that can be done if these groups co-operate in > new ways. Also there were workshops which I found very > disappointing on this in Hyderabad. > > But yes the governance issue is a little hard to find at this > stage and I would certainly not like to see this as a main > theme. However I think there is room for a few regional > co-operative approaches, there are a few national legislation > approaches, and definitely internet architecture approaches > that should be examined here or elsewhere. I think these are > aspects of governance in a loose sense. (and lets face it > much internet "governance" is very loose) > > But right now with just a few days to go this does not appear > to be something IGC is enthusisatic to support, and I am > happy t acept that. > Iwill give some thought to whether I submit this as an > individual or not. > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 15 April 2009 19:32 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal - Towards a > zero carbon Internet > > > Hi Ian, > > Could I ask you to clarify something. Last year when > there were proposals to make climate change a main theme, > some of us argued against it, both on the list and in the > consultations (where Nitin agreed). Our concerns then were two-fold: > > First, while there are obviously links between > Internet/ICT usage and CC, it wasn't clear what links were > being postulated between IG per se and CC. Was the > contention that existing mechanisms---say, the regulation of > registries and registrars, IPV6, or WIPO/WTO regimes----have > some discreet, identifiable impact that could be ameliorated? > Or was it that a new mechanism, say a global regulatory > agreement on the operation of server farms, should be established? > There was some good research done but ultimately the linkages > remained a bit undefined as a basis upon which to proceed. > > Second, some of us were concerned that the IGF > shouldn't go off chasing UN hot topics (no pun intended) when > so many questions about the actual institutional frameworks > and conduct of IG per se had yet to be explored, or at least > explored in any meaningful depth. IGF has generally looked > more at "issues" than "institutions," and in many > arenas---standards, cybercrime, IPR, e-commerce, etc > etc---there's not been much focused discussion of whether the > rule systems and decision making procedures in place are > optimal, how they distribute benefits across stakeholder > groupings, etc. Sticking with the original mission rather > than diluting the focus has been a leitmotif of caucus and > caucus member interventions over the years, for good reason. > > If we're going to reverse positions, what has changed > since then to make this the best use of an IGC proposal slot > (we can't have too many), especially when some IOs will > probably make similar proposals again? Do you want to argue > for a governance arrangement on energy usage? Or would the > steps taken by various actors in their, uh, respective roles, > to reduce emissions comprise something more like best practices etc? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > On Apr 13, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Let me know what you think of IGC endorsement > of a proposal along these lines, or any suggested changes. I > appreciate this is a particular interest of mine and a way > away from the normal business of IGC, but would be happy to > see IGC involved if people feel that way. > > > Title Towards a zero carbon Internet > > Concise description > > This workshop is to specifically explore the > steps which can be taken by Internet users, but specifically > by large private sector and governmental users, to > substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with > current internet usage patterns and architectures. > Much investigation in this area has been > undertaken and there are some fine private sector examples we > can look at. There are also known actions which can be easily > adopted which will be outlined during the workshop. > Please note that this workshop should not be > combined with workshops looking at measurement of IT > greenhouse gas emissions to meet carbon trading scheme > requirements. Important as those measures are, they result in > an entirely different discussion involving a different set of > stakeholders. This workshop is about what can be done > immediately and work going on in the field at this time. > > > Relates to theme - > > Critical Internet Resources > > > If so, who would you approach as co-organizers > ? If not, who do you think should organize it? > > > We would seek to have involved represntatives > of Google and VMWare, a representative of the Internet > Architecture Board, a representative of CANARIE (Canada) who > have a significant program in this area, IISD, APC and others. > > 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 > > > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > *********************************************************** > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release > Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Apr 18 18:41:18 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:41:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] NN Workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <49E6A6F0.3020303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Folks, its probably because we are too busy with other things, but we dont seem to have a firm proposal here and we are 48 hours from deadline. Milton, I would encourage you to submit this but I dont think we can get full IGC endorsement in the limited time available Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 16 April 2009 13:33 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] NN Workshop proposal Thanks Milton for this. Some comments >While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various >approaches to NN and in particular examine how >consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in >middle income and developing countries. Relates to theme - >Openness I dont think we need to be highlighting the argument that service providers take against developing NN frameworks- that of investments needed for laying infrastructure. They are powerful enough to do it themselves. That argument in my view doesn't hold, but I will not argue on that. It is enough that this is the service providers' argument and the public interest argument is more about people's right to access information, applications, services etc of their choice, and of media diversity etc. Why should we not be highlighting these public interest arguments rather than the regressive one - we need to fund investments in new infrastructure, so let us charge people as we want. Why would for instance we not instead say that we will examine the NN implications on content and media diversity and other rights of the people and communities. Moreover there is something inherently repugnant about speaking about governance systems of the North alongwith needs/ infrastructure of the South...I am sorry to appear a bit too strong on this, but this is patronizing. South is as concerned about governance systems as it is about infrastructure, pl get this clearly. Milton, you are always concerned about how we should discuss governance issues more than infrastructural issues at the IGF, so why did it not occur to you to frame it something like this - how the emerging NN consensus in the North affects the South, when South is hardly included/participating in the global NN debates, while the NN regimes that will emerge from a North-based consensus will almost definitely become a global default, and thus be forced on the South. I would also *not* like to start with - NN is confusing, which again is more the argument/ strategy of those opposed to NN who will like to use the alleged 'confusion' not to have anything done on NN. I would rather like to start with something like - There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others effected by it. The fact that there is an increasing recognition of such an urgency - seen from many political and legislative articulations of it in many countries - is at least as much of a fact as the supposed 'confusion' around NN. Whether we begin our workshop proposal statement one way or the other depends on our political proclivities. And it is my understanding that most IGC members prefer some kind of recognition of NN principles, rather than wanting to further add to the - deliberately whipped up - impression of 'great confusion around NN'. This is, in nay case, after all not an academic workshop. Though of course we will give platform to all views but 'confusion around NN' doesnt appear to be the right point of departure. If there is indeed so much confusion how did most relevant actors in Norway agree to a set of NN principles. Why should then we as a progressive civil society group want to keep harping on the 'confusion around NN'. I propose the following text. "There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates." The rest can be as it is. Thanks parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: With thanks to Parminder and Adam. For discussion and additions of examples (other countries) Title Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles Concise description (up to 200 words) Network neutrality (NN) can be controversial because there are conflicting ideas about what it is and what obligations it imposes on service providers. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN and in particular examine how consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in middle income and developing countries. Relates to theme -Openness Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it? Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 18 18:45:12 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:45:12 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <11C56E0A838C4F9EAC3143FE08C2E12B@IAN> Message-ID: <1DEFB762D854413DB6328CD2A0036897@IAN> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support in next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit it in any case. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of > > Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need > expressions of support for the new wording from a few of > those who were not happy with the previous version if we are > to submit this as an IGC proposal > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of > > > I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. > > I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. > Would therefore prefer > > "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not > just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance > with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key > socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive > and accountable internationalization." > > to be changed to > > "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not > just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance > with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global > socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires > participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " > > parminder > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > Let me have one last go at this to see if we > can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the > following draft works, or possible amendments that might make > it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting > viewpoints we have on this subject > - that is going to require removing some of the concepts > which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement > > > I've changed the original text quite liberally! > Let me know if this works > > Title > > > Internationalization of Internet Governance - > The way forward from where we stand today > > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > > > The Internet's present governance structures > grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new > socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context > of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and > emerging issues related to its governance could not have been > anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the > Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring > technical governance with regard to keeping it running > smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative, inclusive and accountable > internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of > evolution and internationalization of IG from various > standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real > institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or > who do you think should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Parminder > [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop > proposal - Internationalisation of IG > > > > This is an attempted draft for the > proposed internationalisation workshop. > > > Title > > > Democratic internationalization of > Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today > > > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > > > As the Internet becomes a key factor of > reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global > level as never before, democratic global governance of the > Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance > structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well > as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. > In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has > wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its > governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance > arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One > thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > technical artifact, requiring technical governance with > regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key > socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political > governance by all people of the world, who are all > implicated. However, the direction we move in from here > depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the > needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these > dual standpoints. > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some > real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers > ? Or who do you think should organize it? > > > It is best that this workshop is > organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to > organize this workshop, along with some civil society > organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release > Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Apr 18 18:47:45 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:47:45 +1000 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance - multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8BD4D4FED9904F7BA83795BEE027C18F@IAN> Ido not believe IGC can endorse a workshop aloing these lines at this stage given current feedback. I would encourage individual submission however and we can revisit this later. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 16 April 2009 05:44 To: 'William Drake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: '"Kleinwächter at gator163.hostgator.com, Wolfgang"'; 'de la Chapelle, Bertrand' Subject: RE: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance - multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Hi Bill, I put this up on a quick reading of a previous discussion, during which I recall yourself, Wolfgand and Bertrand being enthusisatic about a workshop along these lines. What we will need if we are to submit a proposal (by 21st) will be some agreed wording, a few enthusiastic supporters, and no strong opposition. So apart from Janna and yourself no-one has commented, and we do not have wording. And as you say this is a busy time. If you can suggest something that works for you, we could maybe still get this up by the deadline. If not, it will still be possible to submit a workshop along these lines at a later stage. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 15 April 2009 19:03 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: "Kleinwächter at gator163.hostgator.com, Wolfgang"; de la Chapelle, Bertrand Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposal - Global Internet Governance - multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Hi Ian, Sorry to be slow to notice this, busy... On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Folks, workshop proposals need to be submited in a week. This particular subject attracted a lot of support, so I am attempting below a first draft of a workshop proposal. Given our time constraints, can I suggest that rather than debate the subject below, you suggest alternative wording and changes to the proposal. We seem to have broad agreement that we should mount a workshop in this area, but some difficulty in wording a proposal appropiately. I am suggesting an organising committee for this workshop of Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, and Bertrand de la Chapelle (without asking them) Inasmuch as all three of us are leaving for Lisbon and the WTPF in a couple days and Wolfgang and Bertrand are probably as swamped as I am, we might want to broaden the pool of people involved in drafting, consulting with the list, and doing the submission mechanics. We need a final draft this week. Then we need more discussion and clarification pronto. Title Global Internet Governance – multistakeholder involvement of government, civil society and the private sector Concise description The working definition of Internet Governance in Article 34 of TAIS is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Per previous I wouldn't want to start from this 'respective roles' junk language. The WSIS documents have explicitly supported the multistakeholder model in Internet Governance. However, how this would function in agenda-setting, regime drafting, formal adoption/validation, implementation and enforcement is clear. If the IGF and ICANN are laboratories for the new multi-stakeholder governance as we believe they are, this discussion is a central contribution to a better understanding of how it can work. How can multistakeholder involvement evolve to provide appropriate governance structures that work effectivelt for all stakeholder groups? Sorry to be dim, but I'm sort of unclear which conversation people really want to see happen. If I recall correctly this started out as a proposal about the role of governments in unnamed domains of IG, then morphed into the roles of all stakeholders in said domains, then morphed into how to organize multistakeholder processes generally, which sort of has a rather familiar, been there done that flavor to it at first taste....What exactly needs to be talked about that hasn't been? Relates to theme – Critical Internet Resources Surely it's broader than this. If it's not, and what people really have in mind is something about ICANN, maybe we should stop speaking in code. Thanks, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj *********************************************************** Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Sat Apr 18 22:27:14 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:27:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] RP Workshop proposal final draft for consensus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I like it and will support this. The ISOC PH (c/o IG Working Group) will be interested to participate as we are also establishing remote hubs for the coming IGF09. Regards, Charity On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I propose this as a final draft for the RP Workshop: > > 1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words) > > Remote Participation: mapping the field, evaluation and multistakeholder > involvement > > 2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200 words) > > At the IGF Hyderabad, the Remote Participation Working Group and the IGF > Secretariat coordinated with local partners in the creation of IGF hubsand support for Remote Participation in the IGF main event.Since then, the debate about remote participation has gained momentum. > > Nonetheless, stakeholders must review: a) How they can benefit from the > improvement in remote participation possibilities at the IGF; b) what > their role is in the projects that aim to enhance remote participation; c) > how stakeholders can work synergistically in order to implement remote > participation. > > The workshop will discuss remote participation both from a policy (what > should be done) and a best practices approach (what has been done). > > Policy: > > 1- Mapping the field of remote participation. Identify the > impelling/institutional arrangements where remote participation is most > needed. Identify additional prospective stakeholders that should be > involved in this initiative and how to engage them. > > 2- Global and regional fora and issues > > 3- Inclusion of people from developing countries > > 4- Inclusion of people with disabilities. > > Best practices: > > 1- Best practices at the IGF: an evaluation (including remote hubs) > > 2- Guidelines for RP at the IGF: a step towards a code of best practices in > the field of remote participation? > > > > 3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes (Critical > Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or under the > cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)? If so which one? > (Please select the most appropriate one.) > > Capacity Building > > Capacity development must be seen both as a precondition and as an outcome > of remote participation. The involvement of a broader range of > stakeholders on the Internet Governance debate, particularly those from > developing countries, will have a positive impact on their abilities to > follow and to intervene in global and regional debates. Building Capacity > in this area will foster access, openness and diversity in international > policy processes. > > > > 4.Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the link > to the report. > > IGC has organized the following workshops > > “Internet for all – Exploring a rights-based approach” Available at: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72 > workshops/345-internet-for-all-exploring-a-rights-based-approach > > “ The transboundary Internet: jurisdiction, control and sovereignty” > Available at: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty > > > > 5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself? > > 1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? > > The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) and the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC) > > We suggest approaching DiploFoundation as well. DiploFoundation has > organized and reported on a number of Capacity Building and other workshops. > > > > > > > > > > Ginger > > > > Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque > > DiploFoundation > > Coordinator IGCBP 09 > > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 22:31:51 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:31:51 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <1DEFB762D854413DB6328CD2A0036897@IAN> Message-ID: I would support this Workshop. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support in next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit it in any case. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of > > Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need > expressions of support for the new wording from a few of > those who were not happy with the previous version if we are > to submit this as an IGC proposal > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of > > > I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. > > I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. > Would therefore prefer > > "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not > just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance > with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key > socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive > and accountable internationalization." > > to be changed to > > "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not > just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance > with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global > socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires > participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " > > parminder > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > Let me have one last go at this to see if we > can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the > following draft works, or possible amendments that might make > it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting > viewpoints we have on this subject > - that is going to require removing some of the concepts > which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement > > > I've changed the original text quite liberally! > Let me know if this works > > Title > > > Internationalization of Internet Governance - > The way forward from where we stand today > > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > > > The Internet's present governance structures > grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new > socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context > of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and > emerging issues related to its governance could not have been > anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the > Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring > technical governance with regard to keeping it running > smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative, inclusive and accountable > internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of > evolution and internationalization of IG from various > standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real > institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or > who do you think should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Parminder > [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop > proposal - Internationalisation of IG > > > > This is an attempted draft for the > proposed internationalisation workshop. > > > Title > > > Democratic internationalization of > Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today > > > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > > > As the Internet becomes a key factor of > reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global > level as never before, democratic global governance of the > Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance > structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well > as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. > In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has > wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its > governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance > arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One > thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > technical artifact, requiring technical governance with > regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key > socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political > governance by all people of the world, who are all > implicated. However, the direction we move in from here > depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the > needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these > dual standpoints. > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some > real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers > ? Or who do you think should organize it? > > > It is best that this workshop is > organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to > organize this workshop, along with some civil society > organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release > Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Sun Apr 19 02:05:50 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:05:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG References: <0EA0E33E12454596AA602267E223107A@IAN> Message-ID: <064701c9c0b4$e51f9bb0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> One point and explanation: 1. I'd substitute "governance" for "internationalization" in the sentence "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization." 2. Explanation. My current involvement with the Net is primarily with city TLDs, those long banished entities, a DNS lacuna soon to be filled ( go .nyc!). Presuming these entities, home to more than 50% of the world's population, succeed in work their way into the DNS as public interest serving entities, their role in the Net's governance structure must be considered. Thus if we're agreed that "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon" then governance is required, not internationalization. Perhaps that governance is internationalized, but governance is the important point. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Parminder' Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:49 AM Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG Let me have one last go at this to see if we can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the following draft works, or possible amendments that might make it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints we have on this subject - that is going to require removing some of the concepts which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement I've changed the original text quite liberally! Let me know if this works Title Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 19 05:49:40 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:19:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <064701c9c0b4$e51f9bb0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <0EA0E33E12454596AA602267E223107A@IAN> <064701c9c0b4$e51f9bb0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <49EAF3B4.4000803@itforchange.net> Tom how does the following sound. "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which includes its internationalization." Parminder Parminder Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > One point and explanation: > > 1. I'd substitute "governance" for "internationalization" in the > sentence "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just > a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to > keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon > requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization." > > 2. Explanation. My current involvement with the Net is primarily with > city TLDs, those long banished entities, a DNS lacuna soon to be > filled ( go .nyc!). Presuming these entities, home to more than 50% of > the world's population, succeed in work their way into the DNS > as public interest serving entities, their role in the Net's > governance structure must be considered. Thus if we're agreed that > "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to > keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon" > then governance is required, not internationalization. Perhaps that > governance is internationalized, but governance is the important point. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ian Peter > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; 'Parminder' > *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:49 AM > *Subject:* RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of IG > > Let me have one last go at this to see if we can get some > acceptable wording . Please let me know if the following draft > works, or possible amendments that might make it work. I'm trying > to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints we have on this > subject - that is going to require removing some of the concepts > which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement > > > I've changed the original text quite liberally! Let me know if > this works > > > *Title* > > * > Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from > where we stand today > * > > *Concise description (up to 200 words)* > > * > *The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities > around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the > Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its > governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing > however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical > artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it > running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It > is important to analyze the needs of evolution and > internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the > direction in which we might move from here > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and > analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and > disadvantages of each. * * > > * > Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs > > ** > *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > should organize it?* > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 13 April 2009 13:07 > *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > *Subject:* [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of IG > > > This is an attempted draft for the proposed > internationalisation workshop. > > *Title* > > * > Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The > way forward from where we stand today > > * > > *Concise description (up to 200 words)* > > * > *As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our > social structures, and doing so at a global level as never > before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a > pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew > out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new > socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context > of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and > emerging issues related to its governance, and the > correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not > have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by > now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring > technical governance with regard to keeping it running > smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative political governance by all people of the world, > who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in > from here depends on where we stand. It is important to > analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG > from these dual standpoints. > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and > analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and > disadvantages of each. * * > > * > Relates to theme -- *IG, CIRs > > ** > *Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > should organize it?* > > > It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society > actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along > with some civil society organizations form the North and > South that have shown interest. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 toml at communisphere.com Sun Apr 19 08:49:06 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:49:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG References: <0EA0E33E12454596AA602267E223107A@IAN> <064701c9c0b4$e51f9bb0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <49EAF3B4.4000803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <069601c9c0ed$3af50c90$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> I like the way that sounds. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Thomas Lowenhaupt Cc: Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG Tom how does the following sound. "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which includes its internationalization." Parminder Parminder Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: One point and explanation: 1. I'd substitute "governance" for "internationalization" in the sentence "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization." 2. Explanation. My current involvement with the Net is primarily with city TLDs, those long banished entities, a DNS lacuna soon to be filled ( go .nyc!). Presuming these entities, home to more than 50% of the world's population, succeed in work their way into the DNS as public interest serving entities, their role in the Net's governance structure must be considered. Thus if we're agreed that "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon" then governance is required, not internationalization. Perhaps that governance is internationalized, but governance is the important point. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; 'Parminder' Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:49 AM Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG Let me have one last go at this to see if we can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the following draft works, or possible amendments that might make it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints we have on this subject - that is going to require removing some of the concepts which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement I've changed the original text quite liberally! Let me know if this works Title Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sun Apr 19 11:40:20 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:40:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0904190840v737b826ble312ac2b40f6cb0e@mail.gmail.com> Congrats, Milton. Best Bertrand 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > FYI > http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Apr 19 14:18:25 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:18:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance and ICANN? Message-ID: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:03:48 +0200 From: Soenke Zehle Subject: Mueller, Securitization of ICANN To: incom-l ICANN gets "securitized" by Milton Mueller on Thu 02 Apr 2009 12:58 PM EDT This is no April Fool's joke: here is a bill that is almost a caricature of what the rest of the world fears about U.S. control of the Internet DNS root and ICANN. Legislation unveiled today by Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, would require a Presidentially appointed cybersecurity advisory panel to ensure that national security would not be compromised before approving the renewal or modification of the contract between the U.S. government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. According to a summary of the bill, it would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to end its relationship with the U.S. government. ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach to cybersecurity. According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would...give the President unfettered power to shut down Internet traffic in emergencies or disconnect any critical infrastructure system or network on national security grounds." Read the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Apr 19 15:56:33 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:26:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance and In-Reply-To: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > According to a summary of the bill, it > would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to > end its relationship with the U.S. government. > > ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach > to cybersecurity. According to "a summary" of the bill ? Summary from whom? ICANN may be mentioned in that summary, but is ICANN mentioned in the BIl ? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Apr 20 03:44:24 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:44:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] RP Workshop proposal final draft for consensus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am agree for this RP Workshop proposal Baudouin 2009/4/18 Ginger Paque : > I  propose this as a final draft for the RP Workshop: > > 1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words) > > Remote Participation: mapping the field, evaluation and multistakeholder > involvement > > 2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200 words) > > At the IGF Hyderabad, the Remote Participation Working Group and the IGF > Secretariat coordinated with local partners in the creation of IGF hubs and > support for Remote Participation in the IGF main event. Since then, the > debate about remote participation has gained momentum. > > Nonetheless, stakeholders must review: a) How they can benefit from the > improvement in remote participation possibilities at the IGF; b) what their > role is in the projects that aim to enhance remote participation; c) how > stakeholders can work synergistically in order to implement remote > participation. > > The workshop will discuss remote participation both from a policy (what > should be done) and a best practices approach (what has been done). > > Policy: > > 1- Mapping the field of remote participation. Identify the > impelling/institutional arrangements where remote participation is most > needed. Identify additional prospective stakeholders that should be involved > in this initiative and how to engage them. > > 2- Global and regional fora and issues > > 3- Inclusion of people from developing countries > > 4- Inclusion of people with disabilities. > > Best practices: > > 1- Best practices at the IGF: an evaluation (including remote hubs) > > 2- Guidelines for RP at the IGF: a step towards a code of best practices in > the field of remote participation? > > > > 3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes (Critical > Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or under the > cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)? If so which one? > (Please select the most appropriate one.) > > Capacity Building > > Capacity development must be seen both as a precondition and as an outcome > of remote participation. The involvement of a broader range of stakeholders > on the Internet Governance debate, particularly those from developing > countries, will have a positive impact on their abilities to follow and to > intervene in global and regional debates. Building Capacity in this area > will foster access, openness and diversity in international policy > processes. > > > > 4.Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the link > to the report. > > IGC has organized the following workshops > > “Internet for all – Exploring a rights-based approach” Available at: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72 > workshops/345-internet-for-all-exploring-a-rights-based-approach > > “ The transboundary Internet: jurisdiction, control and sovereignty” > Available at: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty > > > > 5. Would you like to organize the workshop yourself? > > 1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? > > The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) and the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC) > > We suggest approaching DiploFoundation as well. DiploFoundation has > organized and reported on a number of Capacity Building and other workshops. > > > > > > > > > > Ginger > > > > Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque > > DiploFoundation > > Coordinator IGCBP 09 > > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr http://educticafrique.ning.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 Mon Apr 20 07:41:48 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:11:48 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> IGC-ers IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, which for some reasons have not clearly come out. So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for the IGF 4. I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall plan is. Thanks, parminder Workshop 1 - *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today * The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop * Workshop 2* *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* Concise description (up to 200 words) There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. Relates to theme - Openness Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it? Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. Michael Gurstein wrote: > I would support this Workshop. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' > Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of > > > At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not > believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support in > next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit > it in any case. > > Ian Peter > PO Box 429 > Bangalow NSW 2479 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >> Internationalisation of >> >> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >> to submit this as an IGC proposal >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >> Internationalisation of >> >> >> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >> >> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >> Would therefore prefer >> >> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >> and accountable internationalization." >> >> to be changed to >> >> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >> viewpoints we have on this subject >> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >> >> >> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >> Let me know if this works >> >> Title >> >> >> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >> The way forward from where we stand today >> >> >> Concise description (up to 200 words) >> >> >> The Internet's present governance structures >> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >> participative, inclusive and accountable >> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >> >> >> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >> advantages and disadvantages of each. >> >> >> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >> >> >> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >> who do you think should organize it? >> >> >> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> PO Box 429 >> >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> >> Australia >> >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Parminder >> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >> >> >> >> This is an attempted draft for the >> proposed internationalisation workshop. >> >> >> Title >> >> >> Democratic internationalization of >> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >> >> >> >> Concise description (up to 200 words) >> >> >> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >> governance by all people of the world, who are all >> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >> dual standpoints. >> >> >> The workshop will seek to discuss some >> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >> advantages and disadvantages of each. >> >> >> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >> >> >> Who would you approach as co-organizers >> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >> >> >> It is best that this workshop is >> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >> >> >> >> >> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Apr 20 07:53:27 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:53:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <954259bd0904190840v737b826ble312ac2b40f6cb0e@mail.gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0904190840v737b826ble312ac2b40f6cb0e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: God's Guidance Milton Warmly Aaron On 4/19/09, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Congrats, Milton. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> >> FYI >> http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Apr 20 08:48:15 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:48:15 +0500 Subject: [governance] Interesting News: Linkedin denies service for countries under US trade sanctions Message-ID: <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, I picked this news item up from a US based Arab oriented service called Meedan.net but some members on the governance list might want to dig a bit deeper into this issue of Internet Authoritarianism: http://beta.meedan.net/index.php?page=events&post_id=274105 Linkedin denies service for countries under US trade sanctions Linkedin, the business social networking service, blocked out all users from countries under US sanctions claiming that their services are subject to export and re-export control laws and regulations. This includes the sanctions programs maintained by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. According to an email from the company’s customer service, linkedin states: “We do not allow member accounts or access to our site from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.” An issue that emerges from the above news is that are the people under a governance system not accepted by an influential country that has a major stake in the Internet infrastructure allowed to use that technology to come out of their grave state of affairs enabled by the Internet? -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Apr 20 08:58:04 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:58:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Interesting News: Linkedin denies service for In-Reply-To: <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: hello, the problem was resolved yesterday for syrian users, http://jilliancyork.com/2009/04/19/linkedin-doing-the-right-thing/ Rafik PS meedan is more oriented for western as the aim is to translate arabic content. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi All, I picked this news item up from a US based Arab oriented > service called Meedan.net but some members on the governance list > might want to dig a bit deeper into this issue of Internet > Authoritarianism: > http://beta.meedan.net/index.php?page=events&post_id=274105 > > Linkedin denies service for countries under US trade sanctions > > Linkedin, the business social networking service, blocked out all > users from countries under US sanctions claiming that their services > are subject to export and re-export control laws and regulations. This > includes the sanctions programs maintained by the Treasury > Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. According to an email > from the company’s customer service, linkedin states: “We do not allow > member accounts or access to our site from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, > Sudan, or Syria.” > > An issue that emerges from the above news is that are the people under > a governance system not accepted by an influential country that has a > major stake in the Internet infrastructure allowed to use that > technology to come out of their grave state of affairs enabled by the > Internet? > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Mon Apr 20 08:54:41 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:54:41 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01C7944@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Thanks for the prompt Parminder, and to those involved in the drafting. I support the submission of both proposals. Many thanks, Lisa From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 20 April 2009 12:42 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: 'Ian Peter' Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IGC-ers IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, which for some reasons have not clearly come out. So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for the IGF 4. I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall plan is. Thanks, parminder Workshop 1 - Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop Workshop 2 Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles Concise description (up to 200 words) There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. Relates to theme - Openness Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it? Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. Michael Gurstein wrote: I would support this Workshop. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support in next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit it in any case. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need expressions of support for the new wording from a few of those who were not happy with the previous version if we are to submit this as an IGC proposal Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. Would therefore prefer "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization." to be changed to "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " parminder Ian Peter wrote: Let me have one last go at this to see if we can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the following draft works, or possible amendments that might make it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints we have on this subject - that is going to require removing some of the concepts which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement I've changed the original text quite liberally! Let me know if this works Title Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. Ian Peter PO Box 429 Bangalow NSW 2479 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG This is an attempted draft for the proposed internationalisation workshop. Title Democratic internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today Concise description (up to 200 words) As the Internet becomes a key factor of reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political governance by all people of the world, who are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Relates to theme - IG, CIRs Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should organize it? It is best that this workshop is organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4021 (20090420) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 20 09:16:39 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:16:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Interesting News: Linkedin denies service for countries under US trade sanctions In-Reply-To: <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f at mail.gmail.com>, at 17:48:15 on Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Fouad Bajwa writes >Linkedin, the business social networking service, blocked out all >users from countries under US sanctions claiming that their services >are subject to export and re-export control laws and regulations. This >includes the sanctions programs maintained by the Treasury >Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. According to an email >from the company’s customer service, linkedin states: “We do not allow >member accounts or access to our site from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, >Sudan, or Syria.” > >An issue that emerges from the above news is that are the people under >a governance system not accepted by an influential country that has a >major stake in the Internet infrastructure allowed to use that >technology to come out of their grave state of affairs enabled by the >Internet? Isn't the problem that Linkedin is based in the USA? They have to comply with US law. Alternatively they could "do an Ebay [Europe]" and relocate their web presence to Switzerland. -- 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 email at hakik.org Mon Apr 20 09:41:19 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:41:19 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01C7944@DATASRV.GLOBAL.loca l> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01C7944@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <20090420134126.B0A66A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear Parminder, Both the workshops are well focused and if I may, I support both of them. Thanking you, Hakik At 01:54 PM 4/20/2009, Lisa Horner wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9C1B7.2C0E06E4" > >Thanks for the prompt Parminder, and to those involved in the >drafting. I support the submission of both proposals. > >Many thanks, >Lisa > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: 20 April 2009 12:42 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >Cc: 'Ian Peter' >Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of > >IGC-ers > >IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, >and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not >be the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. > >I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i >think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late >hour because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network >Neutrality and Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong >support in the IGC, which for some reasons have not clearly come out. > >So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has >been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage >of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a >considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if >we do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted >ever for the IGF 4. > >I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for >them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are >moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may >take a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the >overall plan is. > >Thanks, parminder > >Workshop 1 - > >Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from >where we stand today >The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities >around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon >requiring participative, inclusive and >accountable internationalization. It is important to analyze the >needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from >various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here. > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly >presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with >the advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you > think should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and > internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the > direction in which we might move from here. > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly >presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with >the advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you > think should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop > >Workshop 2 > >Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles > >Concise description (up to 200 words) >There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some >kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic >nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users >and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts >to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. >and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. > >Relates to theme - >Openness > > >Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should >organize it? > >Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in >organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based >civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; >ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan >Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There >are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such >negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will >learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country >commentators in particular. > > > > > > > >Michael Gurstein wrote: > >I would support this Workshop. > >MBG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter >[mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; >'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of > > >At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support in >next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit >it in any case. > >Ian Peter >PO Box 429 >Bangalow NSW 2479 >Australia >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >www.ianpeter.com > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >Internationalisation of > >Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >to submit this as an IGC proposal > >Ian Peter > >PO Box 429 > >Bangalow NSW 2479 > >Australia > >Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Parminder > [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 > To: > 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >Internationalisation of > > > I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. > > I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >Would therefore prefer > > "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >and accountable internationalization." > > to be changed to > > "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " > > parminder > > > > Ian Peter wrote: > > Let me have one last go at this to see if we >can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >viewpoints we have on this subject >- that is going to require removing some of the concepts >which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement > > > I've changed the original text quite liberally! >Let me know if this works > > Title > > > Internationalization of Internet Governance - >The way forward from where we stand today > > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > > > The Internet's present governance structures >grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >technical governance with regard to keeping it running >smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >participative, inclusive and accountable >internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >evolution and internationalization of IG from various >standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real >institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >who do you think should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > PO Box 429 > > Bangalow NSW 2479 > > Australia > > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > > www.ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Parminder >[mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 > To: > 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >proposal - Internationalisation of IG > > > > This is an attempted draft for the >proposed internationalisation workshop. > > > Title > > > Democratic internationalization of >Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today > > > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > > > As the Internet becomes a key factor of >reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >level as never before, democratic global governance of the >Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >governance by all people of the world, who are all >implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >dual standpoints. > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some >real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers >? Or who do you think should organize it? > > > It is best that this workshop is >organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >organize this workshop, along with some civil society >organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. > > > > > >Internal Virus Database is out of date. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4021 (20090420) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.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 graciela at rits.org.br Mon Apr 20 10:04:35 2009 From: graciela at rits.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:04:35 -0300 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> Dear all, I support the proposal of both workshops. best, Graciela Parminder escreveu: > IGC-ers > > IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, > and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be > the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here > voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. > > I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i > think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG > forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour > because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and > Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, > which for some reasons have not clearly come out. > > So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl > indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the > coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has > been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage > of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an > initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a > considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, > later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we > do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for > the IGF 4. > > I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for > them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are > moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take > a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall > plan is. > > Thanks, parminder > > Workshop 1 - > > *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from > where we stand today * > The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities > around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the > Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its > governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing > however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical > artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it > running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is > important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization > of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might > move from here. > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and > internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction > in which we might move from here. > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop > * > Workshop 2* > > *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind > of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature > of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and > others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to > articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and > developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national > regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational > implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis > developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. > > Relates to theme - > Openness > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should > organize it? > > Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in > organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil > society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange > (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers > Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific > countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over > principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We > will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. > > > > > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: >> I would support this Workshop. >> >> MBG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of >> >> >> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support in >> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit >> it in any case. >> >> Ian Peter >> PO Box 429 >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> Australia >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>> Internationalisation of >>> >>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> PO Box 429 >>> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> >>> Australia >>> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>> Internationalisation of >>> >>> >>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>> >>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>> Would therefore prefer >>> >>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>> and accountable internationalization." >>> >>> to be changed to >>> >>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>> >>> >>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>> Let me know if this works >>> >>> Title >>> >>> >>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>> The way forward from where we stand today >>> >>> >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>> >>> >>> The Internet's present governance structures >>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>> >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>> who do you think should organize it? >>> >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> PO Box 429 >>> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> >>> Australia >>> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Parminder >>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>> >>> >>> >>> This is an attempted draft for the >>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>> >>> >>> Title >>> >>> >>> Democratic internationalization of >>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>> >>> >>> >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>> >>> >>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>> dual standpoints. >>> >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>> >>> >>> It is best that this workshop is >>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 20 10:48:22 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:48:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Interesting News: Linkedin denies service for In-Reply-To: <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904200548j695867f4ic8ddb96bb07ecd2f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486925@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Fouad This is a good example of the destructiveness of imposing a nation-state framework on Internet governance. At WSIS in 2005, when I was interviewed by Iranian IT trade press journalists, I learned about how U.S. sanctions had a negative impact on Iranian bloggers and journalists who wanted to use U.S.-based registrars or hosting sites. Many of these people were not defenders of the Iranian theocracy, quite the opposite. By disrupting these people's internet access, what legitimate policy goals was the U.S. pursuing? There is a disjunction between the Internet-using public and the governmental layer of politics. Obviously there is dual use and overlap among the communities, but the notion that we can punish a government by strangling its Internet users is not a very intelligent one, especially when the internet users might do more to open up the country. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 8:48 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Interesting News: Linkedin denies service for > countries under US trade sanctions > > Hi All, I picked this news item up from a US based Arab oriented > service called Meedan.net but some members on the governance list > might want to dig a bit deeper into this issue of Internet > Authoritarianism: > http://beta.meedan.net/index.php?page=events&post_id=274105 > > Linkedin denies service for countries under US trade sanctions > > Linkedin, the business social networking service, blocked out all > users from countries under US sanctions claiming that their services > are subject to export and re-export control laws and regulations. This > includes the sanctions programs maintained by the Treasury > Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. According to an email > from the company's customer service, linkedin states: "We do not allow > member accounts or access to our site from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, > Sudan, or Syria." > > An issue that emerges from the above news is that are the people under > a governance system not accepted by an influential country that has a > major stake in the Internet infrastructure allowed to use that > technology to come out of their grave state of affairs enabled by the > Internet? > > -- > > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 20 12:20:26 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:20:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486936@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> The summary is the official section-by-section one published by the Congressional staffers who drafted it. The actual bill mentions NTIA and the IANA, which is a subsidiary of ICANN or function performed by ICANN. ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance and On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: According to a summary of the bill, it would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to end its relationship with the U.S. government. ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach to cybersecurity. According to "a summary" of the bill ? Summary from whom? ICANN may be mentioned in that summary, but is ICANN mentioned in the BIl ? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 20 12:23:52 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:23:52 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean "transnationalization" or globalization" instead? > -----Original Message----- > From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation > of > > Dear all, > > I support the proposal of both workshops. > > best, > Graciela > > Parminder escreveu: > > IGC-ers > > > > IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, > > and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be > > the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here > > voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. > > > > I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i > > think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG > > forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour > > because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and > > Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, > > which for some reasons have not clearly come out. > > > > So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl > > indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the > > coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has > > been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage > > of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an > > initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a > > considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, > > later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we > > do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for > > the IGF 4. > > > > I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for > > them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are > > moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take > > a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall > > plan is. > > > > Thanks, parminder > > > > Workshop 1 - > > > > *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from > > where we stand today * > > The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain > > historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities > > around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the > > Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its > > governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing > > however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical > > artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it > > running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > > participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is > > important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization > > of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might > > move from here. > > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > > possibilities of what to do next, possibly > > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > > should organize it? > > > > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > > > It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and > > internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction > > in which we might move from here. > > > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > > possibilities of what to do next, possibly > > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think > > should organize it? > > > > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop > > * > > Workshop 2* > > > > *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* > > > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > > There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind > > of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature > > of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and > > others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to > > articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and > > developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national > > regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational > > implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis > > developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. > > > > Relates to theme - > > Openness > > > > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should > > organize it? > > > > Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in > > organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil > > society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange > > (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers > > Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific > > countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over > > principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We > > will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> I would support this Workshop. > >> > >> MBG > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' > >> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of > >> > >> > >> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not > >> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of > support in > >> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to > submit > >> it in any case. > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> PO Box 429 > >> Bangalow NSW 2479 > >> Australia > >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >> www.ianpeter.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > >>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' > >>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > >>> Internationalisation of > >>> > >>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need > >>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of > >>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are > >>> to submit this as an IGC proposal > >>> > >>> Ian Peter > >>> > >>> PO Box 429 > >>> > >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 > >>> > >>> Australia > >>> > >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >>> > >>> www.ianpeter.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> > >>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 > >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter > >>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > >>> Internationalisation of > >>> > >>> > >>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. > >>> > >>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. > >>> Would therefore prefer > >>> > >>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not > >>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance > >>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key > >>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive > >>> and accountable internationalization." > >>> > >>> to be changed to > >>> > >>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not > >>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance > >>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global > >>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires > >>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we > >>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the > >>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make > >>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting > >>> viewpoints we have on this subject > >>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts > >>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement > >>> > >>> > >>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! > >>> Let me know if this works > >>> > >>> Title > >>> > >>> > >>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - > >>> The way forward from where we stand today > >>> > >>> > >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) > >>> > >>> > >>> The Internet's present governance structures > >>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new > >>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context > >>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and > >>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been > >>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the > >>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring > >>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running > >>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > >>> participative, inclusive and accountable > >>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of > >>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various > >>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here > >>> > >>> > >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real > >>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly > >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. > >>> > >>> > >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > >>> > >>> > >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or > >>> who do you think should organize it? > >>> > >>> > >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian Peter > >>> > >>> PO Box 429 > >>> > >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 > >>> > >>> Australia > >>> > >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > >>> > >>> www.ianpeter.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> > >>> From: Parminder > >>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 > >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > >>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop > >>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This is an attempted draft for the > >>> proposed internationalisation workshop. > >>> > >>> > >>> Title > >>> > >>> > >>> Democratic internationalization of > >>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) > >>> > >>> > >>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of > >>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global > >>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the > >>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance > >>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well > >>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. > >>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has > >>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its > >>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance > >>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One > >>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > >>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with > >>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key > >>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political > >>> governance by all people of the world, who are all > >>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here > >>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the > >>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these > >>> dual standpoints. > >>> > >>> > >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some > >>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly > >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. > >>> > >>> > >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > >>> > >>> > >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers > >>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? > >>> > >>> > >>> It is best that this workshop is > >>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to > >>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society > >>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. > >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release > >>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Mon Apr 20 17:47:37 2009 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (raquelgatto) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:47:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] RP Workshop proposal final draft for consensus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49eced79a79fd_6dfd1555555879b41216@weasel18.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 20 18:00:20 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:00:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Authoritarianism - PayPal.com does not In-Reply-To: <701af9f70904080043y46e7eacbne6b427121e2dc458@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904080043y46e7eacbne6b427121e2dc458@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just back from 2 blissful weeks offline...and I just had to respond to this one... On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Internet Authoritarianism - PayPal does not authorize Pakistan in its > service list, Why? Fear of fraud probably, the Nigeria scammers have rendered paypal unusable for the whole of Africa. > > The People of Pakistan, a populous ICT/Internet Consumer country, are > denied of its basic right to access PayPal.com services in Pakistan! > Are you promulgating the notion that a paypal account is a human right...seriously?! > www.PayPal.com exists today as an important platform for Electronic > Commerce today globally. Knowledge Workers all over the world work > online and recieve payments as well as transfer them to get work done > from other knowledge workers. Unfortunately, PayPal does not include > Pakistan in its list whereas it includes both China and India. > Pakistan – purely from your business perspective may not be that big > of an economy, but it surely has an economy that is larger and more > active than Bhutan, Chad, Honduras, Somalia, Maldives, Rwanda, Uganda, > Yemen —combined! > > Pakistan may not be that big on PayPal's radar, perhaps Pakistan is > not even equated to a blip, but a country of 170 Million, to be > blatantly ignored (there may be agreement or disagreement to the > choice of words, if the above mentioned countries can have PayPal, we > would like to know what piece of legislation, law, banking > infrastructure, etc. prevents eBay/PayPal from including Pakistan > under its countries-in-which-PayPal-works umbrella). It's not legislation, it's the choice of the suits at PayPal. -- Cheers, McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 20 18:34:38 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:34:38 -0300 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <49ECF87E.9040103@rits.org.br> I also support both workshops. Graciela Selaimen wrote: > Dear all, > > I support the proposal of both workshops. > > best, > Graciela > > Parminder escreveu: >> IGC-ers >> >> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, >> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be >> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >> >> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i >> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour >> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and >> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >> >> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has >> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage >> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a >> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we >> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for >> the IGF 4. >> >> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for >> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are >> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take >> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall >> plan is. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> Workshop 1 - >> >> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from >> where we stand today * >> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities >> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is >> important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization >> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might >> move from here. >> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >> advantages and disadvantages of each. >> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >> >> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >> think should organize it? >> >> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >> >> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction >> in which we might move from here. >> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >> advantages and disadvantages of each. >> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >> >> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >> think should organize it? >> >> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >> * >> Workshop 2* >> >> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >> >> Concise description (up to 200 words) >> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind >> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature >> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to >> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and >> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >> >> Relates to theme - >> Openness >> >> >> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should >> organize it? >> >> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in >> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil >> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers >> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific >> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We >> will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> I would support this Workshop. >>> >>> MBG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Saturday, April >>> 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>> Internationalisation of >>> >>> >>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>> support in >>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to >>> submit >>> it in any case. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> PO Box 429 >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> Australia >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>> Internationalisation of >>>> >>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of those who >>>> were not happy with the previous version if we are to submit this as >>>> an IGC proposal >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> PO Box 429 >>>> >>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>> >>>> Australia >>>> >>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>> >>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 18 >>>> April 2009 03:01 >>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>> Internationalisation of >>>> >>>> >>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>> >>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>>> Would therefore prefer >>>> >>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political >>>> phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable >>>> internationalization." >>>> >>>> to be changed to >>>> >>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires participative, >>>> inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make it >>>> work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints >>>> we have on this subject >>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts which >>>> require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>> >>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>> Let me know if this works Title >>>> >>>> >>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>> >>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>> >>>> >>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of >>>> rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging >>>> issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by >>>> anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just >>>> a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to >>>> keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon >>>> requiring participative, inclusive and accountable >>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints >>>> and the direction in which we might move from here >>>> >>>> >>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting >>>> and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and >>>> disadvantages of each. >>>> >>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>> >>>> >>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>> >>>> >>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> PO Box 429 >>>> >>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>> >>>> Australia >>>> >>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>> >>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Parminder >>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 >>>> 13:07 >>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>> >>>> Title >>>> >>>> >>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>> >>>> >>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level >>>> as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a >>>> pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of >>>> certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political >>>> realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that >>>> the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>> participative political governance by all people of the world, who >>>> are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. >>>> >>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>> >>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>> >>>> >>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>> >>>> >>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize >>>> this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the >>>> North and South that have shown interest. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 20 19:04:17 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:04:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] Initiating discussion on "Internet Authoritarianism" Message-ID: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> I have used this phrase "Internet Authoritarianism" repeatedly without an intention to coin some new phrase or terminology since I have read about networked authoritarianism in the past. The intention has evolved from observing in various cases emerging all over the world that how dictatorship seems to be finding its way into the Internet even from highly proclaimed democratic countries. The term "Internet Authoritarianism" may define inroads to the IGF to umbrella, take stock of, report and monitor such issues under a single theme. This intersection where both democratic and non-democratic regions find their need to assert a level of dictatorship on society through digital means may actually help us develop an insight into why these regions have stepped in to taking such undue control over the Internet trying to clamp down society using their Authoritariansim within the domain of the Internet. There must be a common pattern of things. There can be investigation and evidence collection on the subject. We may be in a position to define a path for the evolution of society to carry out forensics of "Internet Authoritarianism". I continue to feel the urge to take up this topic as mainstream subject from within the Civil Society and give it both form and structure with a knowledge foundation to build upon. As some of you dear members belong to universities around the world, I would love to coordinate with your students as well as researchers to initiate a research theme on "Internet Authoritarianism", bring it into to the domains of discussion within the knowledge networks of Civil Society, Academia and Research and take stock, analyse, collect evidence, identify authoritarianism patterns within the framework of the Internet and create policy working knowledge to be shared within our networks and possible in Internet Governance programs around the world. I would like this rough sketched message to mark the progress stage 1 of such research and development in "Internet Authoritarianism" and I am open to work and collaborate with everyone interested to take this subject forward as an open and inclusive collaborative effort. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 20 19:08:33 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:08:33 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49ECF87E.9040103@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Thanks Parminder for pushing this along, and thanks everyone who responded. At this stage I think there is probably sufficient support to put these two workshops forward. On 21/04/09 8:34 AM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > I also support both workshops. > > Graciela Selaimen wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I support the proposal of both workshops. >> >> best, >> Graciela >> >> Parminder escreveu: >>> IGC-ers >>> >>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, >>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be >>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>> >>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i >>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour >>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and >>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>> >>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has >>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage >>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a >>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we >>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for >>> the IGF 4. >>> >>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for >>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are >>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take >>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall >>> plan is. >>> >>> Thanks, parminder >>> >>> Workshop 1 - >>> >>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from >>> where we stand today * >>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities >>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is >>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization >>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might >>> move from here. >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>> think should organize it? >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>> >>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction >>> in which we might move from here. >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>> think should organize it? >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>> * >>> Workshop 2* >>> >>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >>> >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind >>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature >>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to >>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and >>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>> >>> Relates to theme - >>> Openness >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should >>> organize it? >>> >>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in >>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil >>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers >>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific >>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We >>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>> >>>> MBG >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Saturday, April >>>> 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>> Internationalisation of >>>> >>>> >>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>>> support in >>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to >>>> submit >>>> it in any case. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> PO Box 429 >>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>> Australia >>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of those who >>>>> were not happy with the previous version if we are to submit this as >>>>> an IGC proposal >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>> >>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>> >>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>> >>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 18 >>>>> April 2009 03:01 >>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>> >>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>> >>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political >>>>> phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>> internationalization." >>>>> >>>>> to be changed to >>>>> >>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires participative, >>>>> inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make it >>>>> work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting viewpoints >>>>> we have on this subject >>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts which >>>>> require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>> >>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>> Let me know if this works Title >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>> >>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of >>>>> rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging >>>>> issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by >>>>> anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just >>>>> a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to >>>>> keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon >>>>> requiring participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints >>>>> and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly presenting >>>>> and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and >>>>> disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>> >>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>> >>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>> >>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: Parminder >>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 13 April 2009 >>>>> 13:07 >>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>> >>>>> Title >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global level >>>>> as never before, democratic global governance of the Internet is a >>>>> pressing imperative. Its present governance structures grew out of >>>>> certain historical contexts, as well as of some new socio-political >>>>> realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that >>>>> the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >>>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>> participative political governance by all people of the world, who >>>>> are all implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from these dual standpoints. >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to organize >>>>> this workshop, along with some civil society organizations form the >>>>> North and South that have shown interest. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 20 19:52:40 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:52:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Program - GigaNet Workshop in Brussels, 11 May 2009 - "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction" Message-ID: Dear all, This workshop might be of interest to some of you. It will be held in Brussels, right before the next IGF consultation meeting in Geneva. Please find hereafter and as attached file the program and the registration form to the 2nd international academic workshop on: "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction". This workshop is organized by GigaNet (the Global Internet Governance Academic Network), in cooperation with three thematic sections of the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA): International and Intercultural Communication (IIC), Communication and Democracy (CD), Communication, Law and Policy (CLP) sections. Building on the success of its 1st edition in Paris, France, in June 2008, this workshop will be held in Brussels, Belgium, on 11 May 2009. Workshop place: Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Campus Etterbeek, Building D, Promotiezaal D.2.01. Map of the campus: http://www.vub.ac.be/downloads/campusplanEN-high.pdf. Directions to the campus: http://www.vub.ac.be/english/infoabout/campuses/index.html. Hints on travelling to Brussels: http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/giganetcos/2009brusse/practicali. Workshop website at: http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/giganetcos/2009brusse. Please distribute widely. Best regards, Meryem Marzouki (Workshop Co-Chair) LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris http://www-polytic.lip6.fr :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Second International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction Organized by GigaNet, in cooperation with ECREA IIC, CD and CLP Sections Brussels, Belgium, 11 May 2009 Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Campus Etterbeek, Building D, Promotiezaal D.2.01 (Workshop Website: http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/giganetcos/2009brusse) Workshop Detailed Program 09:00-09:30 - Opening Session - Welcoming Remarks by Workshop Co-Chair Luciano Morganti, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium - Presentation of the Workshop Organizers Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA), International and Intercultural Communication (IIC) section, Communication and Democracy (CD) section, Communication, Law and Policy (CLP) section - Contributions and Program Overview by Workshop Co-Chair Meryem Marzouki, CNRS & University Pierre et Marie Curie, France 09:30-10:45 - Panel 1 - Power Dynamics in IG: Transformation or Consolidation? This panel will discuss research activities dealing with global Internet governance actors and their power relationships. It will examine to which extent new power dynamics are actually emerging. Chair: Leo Van Audenhove, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium Panelists: - Multi-Stakeholderism and Intra-Civil Society Networking: The case of the WSIS IG-working group mailing list Bart Cammaerts, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK - Negotiation and the Global Information Economy: Implications for Internet Governance JP Singh, Georgetown University (Washington DC), USA - The governance of web standards. Economic struggles in the XML case François-Xavier Dudouet, Université Paris 9 Dauphine, France Benjamin Nguyen, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin, France Antoine Vion, Université de la Méditerranée, France - Proceduralization, Agencification, and Privatization: Internet Governance’s Three Pillars and their Normative Consequences Meryem Marzouki, CNRS & Université Paris 6 Pierre et Marie Curie, France - Wars in Cyberspace : the recasting of military power in the digital age Jean-Loup Samaan, French Ministry of Defense, France 10:45-11:15 - Coffee Break 11:15-12:30 - Panel 2 - Critical Internet Resources and the Never-Ending ICANN Case This panel will focus on the global governance of critical Internet resources and will bring fresh views on ICANN role in this field. Chair: JP Singh, Georgetown University (Washington DC), USA Panelists: - Work in progress in Internet governance: a proposed study on ICANN’s opening for new gTLDs Laura Abba, CNR, Pisa Institute for Informatics and Telematics, Italy Stefano Trumpy, CNR, Pisa Institute for Informatics and Telematics, Italy - The Governance of Internet Country Code Top Level Domains in Europe George Christou, University of Warwick, UK Seamus Simpson, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK - Administration and marketing of the ccTLD and its policy implications on Internet governance Keisuke Kamimura, Center for Global Communications, International University of Japan, Japan - Internet Governance and Critical Resources Rolf H. Weber, University of Zurich, Switzerland - Neo-Liberal Globalization and Internet Governance Hangwoo Lee, Chungbuk National University, South Korea 12:30-13:45 - Lunch Break 13:45-15:00 - Panel 3 - Regulation of Technologies and Technological Regulation This panel will look at global Internet governance research activities related to regulation. Presentations will address ICT regulation means as well as using ICTs as a mean of regulation. Chair: Katharine Sarikakis, University of Leeds, UK Panelists: - Consumers, Disclosure, and Internet Governance Adam Candeub, Michigan University (MI), USA - The CRID, an interdisciplinary research centre focusing on ICT regulation Yves Poullet, University of Namur (FUNDP), Belgium - Technology-Aware Policy Analysis: Case Studies of Deep Packet Inspection and Network Management Ralf Bendrath, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands - An assumption analysis of the Creative Content Online Public Consultation by the European Commission Luciano Morganti, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium Leo Van Audenhove, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium - Keeping Free Speech, Privacy and Property Real in Virtual Worlds: a Reasonable Duty for the Owners/Creators ? Pierre-François Docquir, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium - Actively vs. Passive Volunteered Personal Information Mark Lizar, London South Bank University & Identity Trust CIC, UK 15:00-15:30 - Coffee Break 15:30-17:00 - Panel 4 - What’s in a field? IG Research Methodologies and Boundaries This panel will look at global Internet governance research activities in terms of methodologies and approaches. It also aims at defining the contours of the field. Chair: Bart Cammaerts, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Panelists: - Mapping Internet Governance: theoretical framework, research methodologies and possible implementation strategies (With a little help from my friends ) Claudia Padovani, University of Padova, Italy Elena Pavan, University of Trento, Italy - Modes of Governance in Digitally Networked Environments: Perspectives from an Interdisciplinary Workshop Malte Ziewitz, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK - Internet Governance - Under Construction: Doing Multidisciplinary and Multisited Research in 'Real Life' and Online Marianne Franklin, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK - Internet Regulation; Governance without the state, an exercise in global cooperation Rafid A Y Fatani, University of Exeter, UK - The social imaginary of new media practices: issues for discussion Pantelis Vatikiotis, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Greece - An Assessment of the Contribution of the Lebanese Universities in Internet Governance Antoine Melki, University of Balamand, Lebanon - Public Opinion Formation in Convergence Culture Jakob Svensson, Karlstad University, Sweden 17:00-17:30 - Closing Session - Synthesis of Discussions, Conclusion and Way Forward Meryem Marzouki, CNRS & University Pierre et Marie Curie, France Luciano Morganti, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: Workshop09Program.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 127202 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RegistrationForm09.rtf Type: text/rtf Size: 47753 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 00:27:41 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:27:41 +0300 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing intergovernmental organizations. I agree that we should say what we mean. But I don't really know what we mean, so let's be more specific. Do we mean "We don't like that ICANN is still under the JPA? Dow we mean that we don't like the fact that the USG has theoretical veto on an entry in the RZF? Do we mean we don't like the fact that ICANN has it's HQ in California, or do we mean we don't like ICANN? >Do we mean "transnationalization" or globalization" instead? no idea. -- Cheers, McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at itforchange.net Tue Apr 21 01:16:54 2009 From: anja at itforchange.net (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:46:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding Final draft In-Reply-To: <8846033BD04E49B78EABFC8506ABCEC0@GINGERLAPTOP> References: <7C8E3ADE0CC94822943C79D0B3B8A368@GINGERLAPTOP> <49E7219A.10304@wzb.eu> <49E72539.40804@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486891@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8846033BD04E49B78EABFC8506ABCEC0@GINGERLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49ED56C6.90103@itforchange.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 01:37:52 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:37:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] RP Workshop proposal final draft for consensus In-Reply-To: <49eced79a79fd_6dfd1555555879b41216@weasel18.tmail> References: <49eced79a79fd_6dfd1555555879b41216@weasel18.tmail> Message-ID: I support and agree with this proposal. Best regards, Marília On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM, raquelgatto wrote: > I also support the RP workshop! > > Raquel > > Em 20/04/2009 04:44, *BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE < b.schombe at gmail.com >* escreveu: > > > I am agree for this RP Workshop proposal > > Baudouin > > 2009/4/18 Ginger Paque : > > I propose this as a final draft for the RP Workshop: > > > > 1. Propose a title for a workshop (not more then 10 words) > > > > Remote Participation: mapping the field, evaluation and multistakeholder > > involvement > > > > 2. Provide a concise description of the workshop (not more than 200 > words) > > > > At the IGF Hyderabad, the Remote Participation Working Group and the IGF > > Secretariat coordinated with local partners in the creation of IGF hubs > and > > support for Remote Participation in the IGF main event. Since then, the > > debate about remote participation has gained momentum. > > > > Nonetheless, stakeholders must review: a) How they can benefit from the > > improve ment in remote participation possibilities at the IGF; b) what > their > > role is in the projects that aim to enhance remote participation; c) how > > stakeholders can work synergistically in order to implement remote > > participation. > > > > The workshop will discuss remote participation both from a policy (what > > should be done) and a best practices approach (what has been done). > > > > Policy: > > > > 1- Mapping the field of remote participation. Identify the > > impelling/institutional arrangements where remote participation is most > > needed. Identify additional prospective stakeholders that should be > involved > > in this initiative and how to engage them. > > > > 2- Global and regional fora and issues > > > > 3- Inclusion of people from developing countries > > > > 4- Inclusion of people with disabilities. > > > > Best practices: > >< br />> 1- Best practices at the IGF: an evaluation (including remote > hubs) > > > > > 2- Guidelines for RP at the IGF: a step towards a code of best practices > in > > the field of remote participation? > > > > > > > > 3. Does the workshop fall under any of the five broad IGF Themes > (Critical > > Internet Resources, Openness, Security, Access, Diversity) or under the > > cross-cutting priorities (development, capacity building)? If so which > one? > > (Please select the most appropriate one.) > > > > Capacity Building > > > > Capacity development must be seen both as a precondition and as an > outcome > > of remote participation. The involvement of a broader range of > stakeholders > > on the Internet Governance debate, particularly those from developing > > countries, will have a positive impact on their abilities to follow and > to > > intervene in global and regional debates. Building Capacity in this area > > will foster access, openness and diversity in international policy > > processes. > > > > > > > > 4.Have you organized an IGF workshop before? If so, please provide the > link > > to the report. > > > > IGC has organized the following workshops > > > > “Internet for all – Exploring a rights-based approach” Available at: > > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72 > > workshops/345-internet-for-all-exploring-a-rights-based-approach > > > > “ The transboundary Internet: jurisdiction, control and sovereignty” > > Available at: > > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-workshops/392-workshop-85-the-transboundary-internet-jurisdiction-control-and-sovereignty > > > > > > > > 5. Would you like to organize the workshop yo urself? > > > > 1. If so, who would you approach as co-organizers ? > > > > The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) and the Internet Governance > > Caucus (IGC) > > > > We suggest approaching DiploFoundation as well. DiploFoundation has > > organized and reported on a number of Capacity Building and other > workshops. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque > > > > DiploFoundation > > > > Coordinator IGCBP 09 > > > > > > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any mess age 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 > téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 > email:b.schombe at gmail.com > http://akimambo.unblog.fr > http://educticafrique.ning.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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 21 02:20:43 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:50:43 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <0f5c01c9c1e9$37d841b0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <0f5c01c9c1e9$37d841b0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <49ED65BB.3040600@itforchange.net> Sorry Thomas . I think there was a cut and paste problem. I meant to put the text that we agreed on. so it will be. "The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which includes its internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here." Thanks for pointing this out. Parminder Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > While the "Internationalization" language is somewhat changes from > that which we discussed, I support moving forward with both workshops. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Parminder > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Michael Gurstein > *Cc:* 'Ian Peter' > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2009 7:41 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - > Internationalisation of > > IGC-ers > > IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each > IGF, and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it > will not be the best outcome of all the energy and time we all > devote here voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe > it. > > I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that > i think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG > forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late > hour because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network > Neutrality and Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong > support in the IGC, which for some reasons have not clearly come out. > > So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl > indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the > coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop > has been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this > stage of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this > is an initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be > changed to a considerable extent, within the overall stated > subject framework, later, which we can do over some discussions. > On the other hand, if we do not submit workshop proposals now they > cannot be submitted ever for the IGF 4. > > I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate > for them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals > that are moving forward will of course keep doing so, and > coordinators may take a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not > quite sure what the overall plan is. > > Thanks, parminder > > Workshop 1 - > > *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward > from where we stand today * > The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political > realities around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes > that the Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues > related to its governance could not have been anticipated by > anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not > just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with > regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political > phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive and accountable > internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of > evolution and internationalization of IG from various standpoints > and the direction in which we might move from here. > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you > think should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. > > It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and > internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the > direction in which we might move from here. > > The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional > possibilities of what to do next, possibly > presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the > advantages and disadvantages of each. > > > Relates to theme - IG, CIRs > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you > think should organize it? > > > IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop > * > Workshop 2* > > *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* > > Concise description (up to 200 words) > There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some > kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic > nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet > users and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent > efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, > the U.S. and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous > national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the > transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially > vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN > debates. > > Relates to theme - > Openness > > > Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think > should organize it? > > Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role > in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press > (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of > Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), > Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of > Communications. There are other specific countries or examples > that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we > don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out > additional developing country commentators in particular. > > > > > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: >> I would support this Workshop. >> >> MBG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of >> >> >> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support in >> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit >> it in any case. >> >> Ian Peter >> PO Box 429 >> Bangalow NSW 2479 >> Australia >> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >> www.ianpeter.com >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>> Internationalisation of >>> >>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> PO Box 429 >>> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> >>> Australia >>> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>> Internationalisation of >>> >>> >>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>> >>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>> Would therefore prefer >>> >>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>> and accountable internationalization." >>> >>> to be changed to >>> >>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>> >>> >>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>> Let me know if this works >>> >>> Title >>> >>> >>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>> The way forward from where we stand today >>> >>> >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>> >>> >>> The Internet's present governance structures >>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>> >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>> who do you think should organize it? >>> >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> PO Box 429 >>> >>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>> >>> Australia >>> >>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>> >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Parminder >>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>> >>> >>> >>> This is an attempted draft for the >>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>> >>> >>> Title >>> >>> >>> Democratic internationalization of >>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>> >>> >>> >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>> >>> >>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>> dual standpoints. >>> >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>> >>> >>> It is best that this workshop is >>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 21 02:54:53 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:54:53 +0300 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49ED65BB.3040600@itforchange.net> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <0f5c01c9c1e9$37d841b0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <49ED65BB.3040600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Parminder wrote: > Sorry Thomas . I think there was a cut and paste problem. I meant to put the > text that we agreed on.Well, by my count 3 have agreed, hardly an overwhelming consensus. It's just doesn't read very smoothly, how about (apologies for HTML, bold are changes): > "The Internet's present governance structures grew out of *a* certain historical > context. With the rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, >key and emerging issues related to its governance *are unpredictable*. The Internet is > *no longer* a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard > to keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon > requiring participative, inclusive and accountable *global *governance. It is important to analyze the > needs of *the* evolution and democratisation of IG from various standpoints > and the direction in which we might move from here." -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 21 03:18:58 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:18:58 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49ED65BB.3040600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Folks, with only about 12 hours to go before we must submit it is getting a little late for wordsmithing and suggested changes. I think we have to go with the text below unless there is absolute support for a last minute improvement. We have plenty of time to improve later on, but not before the initial submission Ian Peter On 21/04/09 4:20 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > Sorry Thomas . I think there was a cut and paste problem. I meant to put the > text that we agreed on. > > so it will be. > > "The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical > contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the Internet. > In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and > emerging issues related to its governance could not have been anticipated by > anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a > technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it > running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring > participative, inclusive and accountable political governance, which includes > its internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of evolution > and internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction in > which we might move from here." > > Thanks for pointing this out. > > Parminder > > > Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> >> While the "Internationalization" language is somewhat changes from that which >> we discussed, I support moving forward with both workshops. >> >> >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: Parminder >>> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Michael Gurstein >>> >>> Cc: 'Ian Peter' >>> >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:41 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of >>> >>> >>> >>> IGC-ers >>> >>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, and it >>> will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be the best >>> outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here voluntarily for some >>> public interest causes we believe it. >>> >>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i think >>> have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG forums, >>> especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour because I do >>> believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and Internationalisation >>> of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, which for some reasons have >>> not clearly come out. >>> >>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl indicate >>> so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the coordinators to take >>> a call if enough support for these workshop has been forthcoming. While the >>> text of the two workshop, at this stage of discussion, is posted below, we >>> must remember that this is an initial rough proposal stage, and the final >>> text can be changed to a considerable extent, within the overall stated >>> subject framework, later, which we can do over some discussions. On the >>> other hand, if we do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be >>> submitted ever for the IGF 4. >>> >>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for them on >>> my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are moving forward >>> will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take a final decision >>> tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall plan is. >>> >>> Thanks, parminder >>> >>> Workshop 1 - >>> >>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we >>> stand today >>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain historical >>> contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities around the >>> Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, >>> the key and emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is >>> not just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to >>> keeping it running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is >>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization of IG >>> from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move from >>> here. >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and >>> disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should >>> organize it? >>> >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>> >>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization >>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might move >>> from here. >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the advantages and >>> disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think should >>> organize it? >>> >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>> >>> Workshop 2 >>> >>> Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles >>> >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN >>> principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the >>> Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected >>> by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on >>> NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While >>> proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to >>> assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN, >>> especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN >>> debates. >>> >>> Relates to theme - >>> Openness >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should >>> organize it? >>> >>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in >>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil >>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers >>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific >>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles >>> that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out >>> additional developing country commentators in particular. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>> >>>> MBG >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of >>>> >>>> >>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of support >>>> in >>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to submit >>>> it in any case. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> PO Box 429 >>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>> Australia >>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>> >>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>> >>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>> >>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>> >>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>> >>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>> >>>>> to be changed to >>>>> >>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>> >>>>> Title >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>> >>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>> >>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>> >>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: Parminder >>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Title >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 21 03:51:43 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:21:43 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> I personally have no problem with putting it as Internationalisation/ transnationalisation something like " *Internationalization/ transnationalisation of Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today * I know this is last minute, and it is entirely up to the co-coordinators to take this change or not. But since Milton replied to my formulation I thought I should state my response/ position on it. If not changed now, when we send the final formulation in May we can always do it this way. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean "transnationalization" or globalization" instead? > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation >> of >> >> Dear all, >> >> I support the proposal of both workshops. >> >> best, >> Graciela >> >> Parminder escreveu: >> >>> IGC-ers >>> >>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, >>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be >>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>> >>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i >>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour >>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and >>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>> >>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has >>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage >>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a >>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we >>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for >>> the IGF 4. >>> >>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for >>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are >>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take >>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall >>> plan is. >>> >>> Thanks, parminder >>> >>> Workshop 1 - >>> >>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from >>> where we stand today * >>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities >>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is >>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization >>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might >>> move from here. >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think >>> should organize it? >>> >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>> >>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction >>> in which we might move from here. >>> >>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>> >>> >>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think >>> should organize it? >>> >>> >>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>> * >>> Workshop 2* >>> >>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >>> >>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind >>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature >>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to >>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and >>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>> >>> Relates to theme - >>> Openness >>> >>> >>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should >>> organize it? >>> >>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in >>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil >>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers >>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific >>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We >>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>> >>>> MBG >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>> >> Internationalisation of >> >>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>>> >> support in >> >>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to >>>> >> submit >> >>>> it in any case. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> PO Box 429 >>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>> Australia >>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>> >>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>> >>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>> >>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>> >>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>> >>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>> >>>>> to be changed to >>>>> >>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>> >>>>> Title >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>> >>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>> >>>>> Australia >>>>> >>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>> >>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: Parminder >>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Title >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 21 04:02:22 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:02:22 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> I support both workshop proposal and a replacing of internationalization by transnationalization. Internationalization suggests replacing one government by many governments. Transnationalization would include non-state actors. jeanette Parminder wrote: > I personally have no problem with putting it as Internationalisation/ > transnationalisation > > something like " > > *Internationalization/ transnationalisation of Internet Governance - The way forward from > where we stand today * > > I know this is last minute, and it is entirely up to the co-coordinators to take this change or not. But since Milton replied to my formulation I thought I should state my response/ position on it. > > If not changed now, when we send the final formulation in May we can always do it this way. > > parminder > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean "transnationalization" or globalization" instead? >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation >>> of >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I support the proposal of both workshops. >>> >>> best, >>> Graciela >>> >>> Parminder escreveu: >>> >>>> IGC-ers >>>> >>>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, >>>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be >>>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>>> >>>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i >>>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late hour >>>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and >>>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >>>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>>> >>>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has >>>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage >>>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a >>>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >>>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, if we >>>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever for >>>> the IGF 4. >>>> >>>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for >>>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are >>>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may take >>>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the overall >>>> plan is. >>>> >>>> Thanks, parminder >>>> >>>> Workshop 1 - >>>> >>>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from >>>> where we stand today * >>>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities >>>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is >>>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization >>>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might >>>> move from here. >>>> >>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>> >>>> >>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>> >>>> >>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think >>>> should organize it? >>>> >>>> >>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>> >>>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the direction >>>> in which we might move from here. >>>> >>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>> >>>> >>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>> >>>> >>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think >>>> should organize it? >>>> >>>> >>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>>> * >>>> Workshop 2* >>>> >>>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >>>> >>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind >>>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature >>>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >>>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to >>>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and >>>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>>> >>>> Relates to theme - >>>> Openness >>>> >>>> >>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should >>>> organize it? >>>> >>>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in >>>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil >>>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers >>>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific >>>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >>>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We >>>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>>> >>>>> MBG >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> >>> Internationalisation of >>> >>>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I do not >>>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>>>> >>> support in >>> >>>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to >>>>> >>> submit >>> >>>>> it in any case. >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>> Australia >>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>> >>>>>> Australia >>>>>> >>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>> >>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>>> >>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>>> >>>>>> to be changed to >>>>>> >>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>>> >>>>>> Title >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>> >>>>>> Australia >>>>>> >>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>> >>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Parminder >>>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Title >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Apr 21 07:19:54 2009 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:19:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] The DNS is a tempting target for control... Message-ID: <20090421111954.GA5149@nic.fr> Here is a candid claim that controllers should mess with the DNS to implement their policy: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090420_time_to_supplement_desktop_security_protections/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Apr 21 10:00:55 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:00:55 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi, I agree with dumping "internationalization," it sounds like the original Syrian version of the Opinion on IG that the ITU WTPF will debate tomorrow here in Lisbon (WSIS II has come early). At the same time, "transnationalization" is usually understood to mean trans- territorial processes over which states have little or at least contestable control, and FWIW in the academic and policy literatures "transnational governance" is usually understood to mean private sector/nongovernmental governance. By this standard, what we have now with ICANN is transnational governance, so calling for transnationalization would seem a bit odd. And I don't suspect this is what Parminder has in mind, since he was referring to the WGIG "oversight" models. Personally, I'd fudge it and say "globalization" instead. At least then nobody will assume they know what we mean and disagree accordingly. And I'd still much prefer that if the workshop is intended to be about ICANN, we just say ICANN, rather than hiding behind verbiage and implicitly conflating ICANN and IG to the exclusion of all else---precisely what the caucus worked to challenge during WSIS. I don't think it's particularly helpful for us to go retrograde, although I'll roll with whatever has support here. Cheers, Bill On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I support both workshop proposal and a replacing of > internationalization by transnationalization. Internationalization > suggests replacing one government by many governments. > Transnationalization would include non-state actors. > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: >> I personally have no problem with putting it as >> Internationalisation/ transnationalisation >> something like " >> *Internationalization/ transnationalisation of Internet Governance >> - The way forward from >> where we stand today * >> I know this is last minute, and it is entirely up to the co- >> coordinators to take this change or not. But since Milton replied >> to my formulation I thought I should state my response/ position on >> it. If not changed now, when we send the final formulation in May >> we can always do it this way. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a >>> term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To >>> many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing >>> intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean "transnationalization" >>> or globalization" instead? >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>> Internationalisation >>>> of >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I support the proposal of both workshops. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> Graciela >>>> >>>> Parminder escreveu: >>>> >>>>> IGC-ers >>>>> >>>>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each >>>>> IGF, >>>>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will >>>>> not be >>>>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>>>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>>>> >>>>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops >>>>> that i >>>>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>>>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this >>>>> late hour >>>>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality >>>>> and >>>>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >>>>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>>>> >>>>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>>>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>>>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop >>>>> has >>>>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this >>>>> stage >>>>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>>>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed >>>>> to a >>>>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >>>>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, >>>>> if we >>>>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted >>>>> ever for >>>>> the IGF 4. >>>>> >>>>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate >>>>> for >>>>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that >>>>> are >>>>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators >>>>> may take >>>>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the >>>>> overall >>>>> plan is. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>> >>>>> Workshop 1 - >>>>> >>>>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward >>>>> from >>>>> where we stand today * >>>>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>>>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political >>>>> realities >>>>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>>>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping >>>>> it >>>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. >>>>> It is >>>>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>> internationalization >>>>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we >>>>> might >>>>> move from here. >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>> think >>>>> should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>> >>>>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the >>>>> direction >>>>> in which we might move from here. >>>>> >>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>> think >>>>> should organize it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>>>> * >>>>> Workshop 2* >>>>> >>>>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >>>>> >>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop >>>>> some kind >>>>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic >>>>> nature >>>>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >>>>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts >>>>> to >>>>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. >>>>> and >>>>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>>>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>>>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>>>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>>>> >>>>> Relates to theme - >>>>> Openness >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think >>>>> should >>>>> organize it? >>>>> >>>>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support >>>>> role in >>>>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based >>>>> civil >>>>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>>>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet >>>>> Providers >>>>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other >>>>> specific >>>>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >>>>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about >>>>> later. We >>>>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in >>>>> particular. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>>>> >>>>>> MBG >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>> >>>> Internationalisation of >>>> >>>>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things >>>>>> I do not >>>>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>>>>> >>>> support in >>>> >>>>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage >>>>>> you to >>>>>> >>>> submit >>>> >>>>>> it in any case. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>> Australia >>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be >>>>>>> internationalised. >>>>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to be changed to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Parminder >>>>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 10:22:52 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:22:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486936@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486936@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0904210722s5dea6545hf59cf6ed206c7170@mail.gmail.com> Milton, When you say "published", does that mean this is accessible on the Web ? Any link pointin to this summary ? Best Bertrand On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The summary is the official section-by-section one published by the > Congressional staffers who drafted it. > > The actual bill mentions NTIA and the IANA, which is a subsidiary of ICANN > or function performed by ICANN. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:57 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa > *Subject:* Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet > Governance and > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > > > According to a summary of the bill, it > would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to > end its relationship with the U.S. government. > > ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach > to cybersecurity. > > > > According to "a summary" of the bill ? Summary from whom? ICANN may be > mentioned in that summary, but is ICANN mentioned in the BIl ? > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Tue Apr 21 13:27:27 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:27:27 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 21-Apr-09, at 7:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > Personally, I'd fudge it and say "globalization" instead. At least > then nobody will assume they know what we mean and disagree > accordingly. And I'd still much prefer that if the workshop is > intended to be about ICANN, we just say ICANN, rather than hiding > behind verbiage and implicitly conflating ICANN and IG to the > exclusion of all else---precisely what the caucus worked to > challenge during WSIS. I don't think it's particularly helpful for > us to go retrograde, although I'll roll with whatever has support > here. I know this doesn't help at this late date, but I see international / transnational / global as beside the point - which is the Internet's inherent capacity to support distributed self-organizing relationships. All three of those words are hierarchical, and therefore move Internet governance out of the frying pan of first principles about open relational choice and into the fire of closed and absolute systems of political authority. Political governance that does not acknowledge a shift towards relational self- organization as a different approach to governance is not going to be good Internet Governance. To put that another way, does anybody believe that "world" government can be "accountable political governance?" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 21 15:46:42 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:46:42 +1000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The two workshops are now submitted. I have gone with transationalisation for the time being as it seemed to have most support, but I think we all agree we need a bit more work on this. There appear to be problems with internationalisation, transationalisation, globalisation, democratisation or multistakeholderism as ways to express participitative, accountable and inclusive governance. All of these phrases seem tainted or incomplete for at least some of us. While I think we agree on the principles we want to see, the right expression is challenging! To be revisited... On 22/04/09 12:00 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with dumping "internationalization," it sounds like the > original Syrian version of the Opinion on IG that the ITU WTPF will > debate tomorrow here in Lisbon (WSIS II has come early). At the same > time, "transnationalization" is usually understood to mean trans- > territorial processes over which states have little or at least > contestable control, and FWIW in the academic and policy literatures > "transnational governance" is usually understood to mean private > sector/nongovernmental governance. By this standard, what we have now > with ICANN is transnational governance, so calling for > transnationalization would seem a bit odd. And I don't suspect this > is what Parminder has in mind, since he was referring to the WGIG > "oversight" models. > > Personally, I'd fudge it and say "globalization" instead. At least > then nobody will assume they know what we mean and disagree > accordingly. And I'd still much prefer that if the workshop is > intended to be about ICANN, we just say ICANN, rather than hiding > behind verbiage and implicitly conflating ICANN and IG to the > exclusion of all else---precisely what the caucus worked to challenge > during WSIS. I don't think it's particularly helpful for us to go > retrograde, although I'll roll with whatever has support here. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I support both workshop proposal and a replacing of >> internationalization by transnationalization. Internationalization >> suggests replacing one government by many governments. >> Transnationalization would include non-state actors. >> jeanette >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> I personally have no problem with putting it as >>> Internationalisation/ transnationalisation >>> something like " >>> *Internationalization/ transnationalisation of Internet Governance >>> - The way forward from >>> where we stand today * >>> I know this is last minute, and it is entirely up to the co- >>> coordinators to take this change or not. But since Milton replied >>> to my formulation I thought I should state my response/ position on >>> it. If not changed now, when we send the final formulation in May >>> we can always do it this way. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a >>>> term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To >>>> many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing >>>> intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean "transnationalization" >>>> or globalization" instead? >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I support the proposal of both workshops. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> Graciela >>>>> >>>>> Parminder escreveu: >>>>> >>>>>> IGC-ers >>>>>> >>>>>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each >>>>>> IGF, >>>>>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will >>>>>> not be >>>>>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>>>>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops >>>>>> that i >>>>>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>>>>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this >>>>>> late hour >>>>>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality >>>>>> and >>>>>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >>>>>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>>>>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>>>>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop >>>>>> has >>>>>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this >>>>>> stage >>>>>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>>>>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed >>>>>> to a >>>>>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >>>>>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, >>>>>> if we >>>>>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted >>>>>> ever for >>>>>> the IGF 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate >>>>>> for >>>>>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that >>>>>> are >>>>>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators >>>>>> may take >>>>>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the >>>>>> overall >>>>>> plan is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> Workshop 1 - >>>>>> >>>>>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward >>>>>> from >>>>>> where we stand today * >>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>>>>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political >>>>>> realities >>>>>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>>>>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping >>>>>> it >>>>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. >>>>>> It is >>>>>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>>> internationalization >>>>>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we >>>>>> might >>>>>> move from here. >>>>>> >>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>>> think >>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the >>>>>> direction >>>>>> in which we might move from here. >>>>>> >>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>>> think >>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>>>>> * >>>>>> Workshop 2* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >>>>>> >>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop >>>>>> some kind >>>>>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic >>>>>> nature >>>>>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >>>>>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts >>>>>> to >>>>>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. >>>>>> and >>>>>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>>>>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>>>>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>>>>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - >>>>>> Openness >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think >>>>>> should >>>>>> organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support >>>>>> role in >>>>>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based >>>>>> civil >>>>>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>>>>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet >>>>>> Providers >>>>>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other >>>>>> specific >>>>>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >>>>>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about >>>>>> later. We >>>>>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in >>>>>> particular. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MBG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>> >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things >>>>>>> I do not >>>>>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>>>>>> >>>>> support in >>>>> >>>>>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage >>>>>>> you to >>>>>>> >>>>> submit >>>>> >>>>>>> it in any case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be >>>>>>>> internationalised. >>>>>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to be changed to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Parminder >>>>>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 jfcallo at isocperu.org Tue Apr 21 15:47:21 2009 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:47:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Initiating discussion on "Internet In-Reply-To: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904201604g51f2a718x34759836d2850faf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090421154721.sfx9gr8is4kwk44w@www.isocperu.org> (English) Dear Fouad: It is interesting analysis, but would like your opinion on a specific theme and real has just happened and I believe that authoritarianism, this time by a social network like facebook. Facebook has just removed from the network or delete files from the Peruvian Network Against Child Pornography (RPCPI) without explanation or reason. Would it not be that authoritarianism? it also comes from a social network that is said propelling the Internet? This is an authoritarian, unless you look like or other viewpoints. Thank you (Spanish) Estimado Fouad: No deja de ser interesante su analisis, pero desearia su opinion en un tema concreto y real que acaba de ocurrir y que yo lo considero un autoritarismo, esta vez por parte de una Red Social como facebook. Facebook, acaba de quitar de la red o borrar los archivos de la Red Peruana Contra la Pornografia Infantil (RPCPI), sin explicacion ni motivo. ¿acaso no seria esto un autoritarismo? que ademas proviene de una red social que se dice propulsora de internet? Esto es un autoritarismo, salvo otros pareces o puntos de vista. Gracias Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 21 16:52:27 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:52:27 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> great points, Garth. Which is why I proposed "transnational" -- as in "transcending" the national. I don't see how that word implies a closed and absolute system of political authority. But if you do think it does, what's the alternative? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > relationships. All three of those words are hierarchical, and > therefore move Internet governance out of the frying pan of first > principles about open relational choice and into the fire of closed > and absolute systems of political authority. Political governance > that does not acknowledge a shift towards relational self- > organization as a different approach to governance is not > going to be > good Internet Governance. To put that another way, does anybody > believe that "world" government can be "accountable political > governance?" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 21 16:53:54 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:53:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <954259bd0904210722s5dea6545hf59cf6ed206c7170@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486936@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0904210722s5dea6545hf59cf6ed206c7170@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> It's attached. Now it's "published" Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance Milton, When you say "published", does that mean this is accessible on the Web ? Any link pointin to this summary ? Best Bertrand On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: The summary is the official section-by-section one published by the Congressional staffers who drafted it. The actual bill mentions NTIA and the IANA, which is a subsidiary of ICANN or function performed by ICANN. ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance and On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: According to a summary of the bill, it would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to end its relationship with the U.S. government. ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach to cybersecurity. According to "a summary" of the bill ? Summary from whom? ICANN may be mentioned in that summary, but is ICANN mentioned in the BIl ? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cybersecurity section by section 0 61.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 76790 bytes Desc: cybersecurity section by section 0 61.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Tue Apr 21 18:31:43 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:31:43 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <02535088-0D87-4AB0-8F1C-B5BD065747B8@telus.net> If the principles are agreed, then why not begin with them? How about "Sustaining collaborative self-organization in Internet Governance?" Or maybe as per Vint Cerf, "Sustaining collaborative ecologies in Internet Governance?" On 21-Apr-09, at 1:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > great points, Garth. Which is why I proposed "transnational" -- as > in "transcending" the national. I don't see how that word implies a > closed and absolute system of political authority. But if you do > think it does, what's the alternative? > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > >> relationships. All three of those words are hierarchical, and >> therefore move Internet governance out of the frying pan of first >> principles about open relational choice and into the fire of closed >> and absolute systems of political authority. Political governance >> that does not acknowledge a shift towards relational self- >> organization as a different approach to governance is not >> going to be >> good Internet Governance. To put that another way, does anybody >> believe that "world" government can be "accountable political >> governance?" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 21 19:58:00 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:58:00 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <02535088-0D87-4AB0-8F1C-B5BD065747B8@telus.net> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <02535088-0D87-4AB0-8F1C-B5BD065747B8@telus.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > If the principles are agreed, then why not begin with them? How > about "Sustaining collaborative self-organization in Internet > Governance?" Or maybe as per Vint Cerf, "Sustaining collaborative > ecologies in Internet Governance?" Because that assumes that everyone (including states and private sector) agrees with us that collaborative self-organization is the objective of I.G. I suspect that some states, at least, do not agree. in other words the content of these workshops are not dictated by CS, they are supposed to involve everyone. I'd like for the WS proposal to establish a framework that allows us to advocate that position, without arrogantly asserting that it is a view held by all participants. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > > On 21-Apr-09, at 1:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > great points, Garth. Which is why I proposed "transnational" -- as > > in "transcending" the national. I don't see how that word > implies a > > closed and absolute system of political authority. But if you do > > think it does, what's the alternative? > > > > Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > > ------------------------------ > > Internet Governance Project: > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > >> relationships. All three of those words are hierarchical, and > >> therefore move Internet governance out of the frying pan of first > >> principles about open relational choice and into the fire of closed > >> and absolute systems of political authority. Political governance > >> that does not acknowledge a shift towards relational self- > >> organization as a different approach to governance is not > >> going to be > >> good Internet Governance. To put that another way, does anybody > >> believe that "world" government can be "accountable political > >> governance?" > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Apr 21 21:53:57 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:53:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] April 29, 2009, Public briefing of new CSTB report -Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE1B02DF3F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, Apologies for the repost re a new report coming out soon on offensive information warfare (vs defensive/cybersecurity issues addressed in the draft cybersecurity act some have been fretting about...you ain't seen nothing yet ; ). To those unfamiliar, National Research Council/Computer Science and Telecommunications Board reports are typically very well done and quite thoughtful - and often highly influential. Should be available as a free download in a week. Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:08 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] April 29, 2009, Public briefing of new CSTB report - Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities Begin forwarded message: From: "Lin, Herb" > Date: April 20, 2009 8:56:48 PM EDT To: "ip" >, > Subject: For IP -- April 29, 2009, Public briefing of new CSTB report - Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities Dave – for IP; I think this is of broad interest. Thanks, Herb The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Research Council will release a new report Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities will be released at 1:00 p.m. on April 29, 2009 at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. Light refreshments will be available starting at 12:30 p.m. Committee co-chairs Admiral William A. Owens, USN (Ret.), and the Honorable Kenneth W. Dam, former Deputy Secretary of State, will brief the report. The text of the flyer, with registration information, is contained at the end of this message. For more information on the study that led to this report please visit www.cstb.org. If you would like to attend this event, please register online at www.cstb.org. Questions about this event may be directed to Eric Whitaker at (202) 334-2605. Sincerely, Herbert S. Lin Chief Scientist, CSTB --------- The National Research Council study on Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities will be released at 1:00 p.m. (Light refreshments served beginning at 12:30 p.m.) on April 29, 2009 at the National Press Club in the Zenger Room 529 14th Street, N.W., 13th Floor Washington, D.C. Committee co-chairs Admiral William A. Owens, USN (Ret.), and the Honorable Kenneth W. Dam, former Deputy Secretary of State, will brief the report. Time will be available for Q&A. Please visit www.cstb.org to register online. Questions about this event may be directed to 202-334-2605. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Cyberattack refers to deliberate actions to alter, disrupt, deceive, degrade, or destroy computer systems or networks or the information and/or programs resident in or transiting these systems or networks. This report focuses on the use of cyberattack as an instrument of U.S. national policy. ________________________________ Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.jpg] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Tue Apr 21 23:01:01 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:01:01 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <02535088-0D87-4AB0-8F1C-B5BD065747B8@telus.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <132BF505-F309-4659-9CAC-DBC073E385F3@telus.net> It might be consistent, not arrogant, to asset the vision statement in the IGC Charter. In part, it states: > 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 INTERDEPENCE, cultural concerns, and both social and economic > development. > That suggests a better title might be: "Interdependencies and Internet Governance." GG On 21-Apr-09, at 3:31 PM, Garth Graham wrote: >> If the principles are agreed, then why not begin with them? How >> about "Sustaining collaborative self-organization in Internet >> Governance?" Or maybe as per Vint Cerf, "Sustaining collaborative >> ecologies in Internet Governance?" On 21-Apr-09, at 4:58 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Because that assumes that everyone (including states and private > sector) agrees with us that collaborative self-organization is the > objective of I.G. I suspect that some states, at least, do not > agree. in other words the content of these workshops are not > dictated by CS, they are supposed to involve everyone. I'd like for > the WS proposal to establish a framework that allows us to advocate > that position, without arrogantly asserting that it is a view held > by all participants. > >> On 21-Apr-09, at 1:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> great points, Garth. Which is why I proposed "transnational" -- as >>> in "transcending" the national. I don't see how that word >> implies a >>> closed and absolute system of political authority. But if you do >>> think it does, what's the alternative? >>> >>> Milton Mueller >>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >>> ------------------------------ >>> Internet Governance Project: >>> http://internetgovernance.org >>> >>>> relationships. All three of those words are hierarchical, and >>>> therefore move Internet governance out of the frying pan of first >>>> principles about open relational choice and into the fire of closed >>>> and absolute systems of political authority. Political governance >>>> that does not acknowledge a shift towards relational self- >>>> organization as a different approach to governance is not >>>> going to be >>>> good Internet Governance. To put that another way, does anybody >>>> believe that "world" government can be "accountable political >>>> governance?" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 22 02:11:57 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:11:57 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <06E3A8B1-A56C-4EBB-8184-5C3BB4941F9A@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Garth Graham wrote: > On 21-Apr-09, at 7:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Personally, I'd fudge it and say "globalization" instead. At least >> then nobody will assume they know what we mean and disagree >> accordingly. And I'd still much prefer that if the workshop is >> intended to be about ICANN, we just say ICANN, rather than hiding >> behind verbiage and implicitly conflating ICANN and IG to the >> exclusion of all else---precisely what the caucus worked to >> challenge during WSIS. I don't think it's particularly helpful for >> us to go retrograde, although I'll roll with whatever has support >> here. > > I know this doesn't help at this late date, but I see > international / transnational / global as beside the point - which > is the Internet's inherent capacity to support distributed self- > organizing relationships. Well, that's a point, but the point was the one we were discussing. Each of these words imply different architectures, processes, and actor roles, all of which matters, as was abundantly demonstrated by the politics around the IG definition and the lead up to it in WSIS phase II. Will be again today at the WTPF. While which the IGC uses to describe a workshop is obviously less important than the terms of an international negotiation, it's better to get it right if we can. Anyway, Ian's submitted the proposal so onward and upward... Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Apr 22 03:13:13 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:13:13 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <49EEC389.6000903@wzb.eu> Hi Bill, just for the sake of it, the classic definition of transnational relationships goes back to a Nye and Keohane article from 1971. Here, transnational relationships are defined as interactions “across state boundaries when at least one actor is not an agent of a government or an intergovernmental organization”. I agree with you that transnationalization is not precise as ICANN, according to the definition above, is a very good example of a transnational organization. On the other hand, the oversight model is not transnational but unilateral. In this respect it makes sense to me to use the term transnationalization. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with dumping "internationalization," it sounds like the original > Syrian version of the Opinion on IG that the ITU WTPF will debate > tomorrow here in Lisbon (WSIS II has come early). At the same time, > "transnationalization" is usually understood to mean trans-territorial > processes over which states have little or at least contestable control, > and FWIW in the academic and policy literatures "transnational > governance" is usually understood to mean private sector/nongovernmental > governance. By this standard, what we have now with ICANN is > transnational governance, so calling for transnationalization would seem > a bit odd. And I don't suspect this is what Parminder has in mind, > since he was referring to the WGIG "oversight" models. > > Personally, I'd fudge it and say "globalization" instead. At least then > nobody will assume they know what we mean and disagree accordingly. And > I'd still much prefer that if the workshop is intended to be about > ICANN, we just say ICANN, rather than hiding behind verbiage and > implicitly conflating ICANN and IG to the exclusion of all > else---precisely what the caucus worked to challenge during WSIS. I > don't think it's particularly helpful for us to go retrograde, although > I'll roll with whatever has support here. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I support both workshop proposal and a replacing of >> internationalization by transnationalization. Internationalization >> suggests replacing one government by many governments. >> Transnationalization would include non-state actors. >> jeanette >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> I personally have no problem with putting it as Internationalisation/ >>> transnationalisation >>> something like " >>> *Internationalization/ transnationalisation of Internet Governance - >>> The way forward from >>> where we stand today * >>> I know this is last minute, and it is entirely up to the >>> co-coordinators to take this change or not. But since Milton replied >>> to my formulation I thought I should state my response/ position on >>> it. If not changed now, when we send the final formulation in May we >>> can always do it this way. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a >>>> term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To >>>> many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing >>>> intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean "transnationalization" >>>> or globalization" instead? >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>> Internationalisation >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I support the proposal of both workshops. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> Graciela >>>>> >>>>> Parminder escreveu: >>>>> >>>>>> IGC-ers >>>>>> >>>>>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each IGF, >>>>>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will not be >>>>>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>>>>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops that i >>>>>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>>>>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this late >>>>>> hour >>>>>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality and >>>>>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >>>>>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>>>>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>>>>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop has >>>>>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this stage >>>>>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>>>>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed to a >>>>>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >>>>>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, >>>>>> if we >>>>>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted ever >>>>>> for >>>>>> the IGF 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate for >>>>>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that are >>>>>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators may >>>>>> take >>>>>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the >>>>>> overall >>>>>> plan is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> Workshop 1 - >>>>>> >>>>>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward from >>>>>> where we stand today * >>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>>>>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political realities >>>>>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>>>>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping it >>>>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. It is >>>>>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and internationalization >>>>>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we might >>>>>> move from here. >>>>>> >>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think >>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the >>>>>> direction >>>>>> in which we might move from here. >>>>>> >>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you think >>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>>>>> * >>>>>> Workshop 2* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >>>>>> >>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some >>>>>> kind >>>>>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature >>>>>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >>>>>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to >>>>>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and >>>>>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>>>>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>>>>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>>>>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>>>>> >>>>>> Relates to theme - >>>>>> Openness >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should >>>>>> organize it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in >>>>>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based >>>>>> civil >>>>>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>>>>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers >>>>>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific >>>>>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >>>>>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about >>>>>> later. We >>>>>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in >>>>>> particular. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MBG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>> >>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>> >>>>>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things I >>>>>>> do not >>>>>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>>>>>> >>>>> support in >>>>> >>>>>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage you to >>>>>>> >>>>> submit >>>>> >>>>>>> it in any case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be internationalised. >>>>>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to be changed to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Parminder >>>>>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 22 05:28:24 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:28:24 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49EEC389.6000903@wzb.eu> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> <49EEC389.6000903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <461267C7-D6E7-4A9E-ABF8-A71A9B89BB80@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Je On Apr 22, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Bill, > > just for the sake of it, What other reason would an academic need? ;-) > > the classic definition of transnational relationships goes back to a > Nye and Keohane article from 1971. Here, transnational relationships > are defined as interactions “across state boundaries when at least > one actor is not an agent of a government or an intergovernmental > organization”. Yes, classic, as in archaic. Back then the notion that anything in world politics could be affected by non-state actors and processes was a paradigm shifter. But the debate's moved on over the past 40 years, and K&N like everyone else have moved toward a more nuanced conceptualization. > > > I agree with you that transnationalization is not precise as ICANN, > according to the definition above, is a very good example of a > transnational organization. Yup. Governments limited to an advisory role is a pretty good metric for the contemporary view. > On the other hand, the oversight model is not transnational but > unilateral. In this respect it makes sense to me to use the term > transnationalization. I take your point, if what we're advocating is that no government, rather than one, should play a central role. But that's WGIG model 2; Parminder was suggesting we should be thinking inter alia about models 1, 3 and 4, which would imply a different word, hence my suggestion. But whatever, basta. Toure's giving his opening address to the WTPF and welcomed the reps of other UN bodies...forgot to include IGF in the list. Best, Bill > > > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> I agree with dumping "internationalization," it sounds like the >> original Syrian version of the Opinion on IG that the ITU WTPF will >> debate tomorrow here in Lisbon (WSIS II has come early). At the >> same time, "transnationalization" is usually understood to mean >> trans-territorial processes over which states have little or at >> least contestable control, and FWIW in the academic and policy >> literatures "transnational governance" is usually understood to >> mean private sector/nongovernmental governance. By this standard, >> what we have now with ICANN is transnational governance, so calling >> for transnationalization would seem a bit odd. And I don't suspect >> this is what Parminder has in mind, since he was referring to the >> WGIG "oversight" models. >> Personally, I'd fudge it and say "globalization" instead. At least >> then nobody will assume they know what we mean and disagree >> accordingly. And I'd still much prefer that if the workshop is >> intended to be about ICANN, we just say ICANN, rather than hiding >> behind verbiage and implicitly conflating ICANN and IG to the >> exclusion of all else---precisely what the caucus worked to >> challenge during WSIS. I don't think it's particularly helpful for >> us to go retrograde, although I'll roll with whatever has support >> here. >> Cheers, >> Bill >> On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> I support both workshop proposal and a replacing of >>> internationalization by transnationalization. Internationalization >>> suggests replacing one government by many governments. >>> Transnationalization would include non-state actors. >>> jeanette >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>> I personally have no problem with putting it as >>>> Internationalisation/ transnationalisation >>>> something like " >>>> *Internationalization/ transnationalisation of Internet >>>> Governance - The way forward from >>>> where we stand today * >>>> I know this is last minute, and it is entirely up to the co- >>>> coordinators to take this change or not. But since Milton replied >>>> to my formulation I thought I should state my response/ position >>>> on it. If not changed now, when we send the final formulation in >>>> May we can always do it this way. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use >>>>> a term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? >>>>> To many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing >>>>> intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean >>>>> "transnationalization" or globalization" instead? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM >>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>> Internationalisation >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I support the proposal of both workshops. >>>>>> >>>>>> best, >>>>>> Graciela >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder escreveu: >>>>>> >>>>>>> IGC-ers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each >>>>>>> IGF, >>>>>>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will >>>>>>> not be >>>>>>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>>>>>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops >>>>>>> that i >>>>>>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>>>>>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this >>>>>>> late hour >>>>>>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network >>>>>>> Neutrality and >>>>>>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the >>>>>>> IGC, >>>>>>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>>>>>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>>>>>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these >>>>>>> workshop has >>>>>>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this >>>>>>> stage >>>>>>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>>>>>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be >>>>>>> changed to a >>>>>>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject >>>>>>> framework, >>>>>>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other >>>>>>> hand, if we >>>>>>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted >>>>>>> ever for >>>>>>> the IGF 4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially >>>>>>> advocate for >>>>>>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals >>>>>>> that are >>>>>>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators >>>>>>> may take >>>>>>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the >>>>>>> overall >>>>>>> plan is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Workshop 1 - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> where we stand today * >>>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>>>>>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political >>>>>>> realities >>>>>>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>>>>>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>>>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>>>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to >>>>>>> keeping it >>>>>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon >>>>>>> requiring >>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>>> internationalization. It is >>>>>>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>>>> internationalization >>>>>>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we >>>>>>> might >>>>>>> move from here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>>>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the >>>>>>> direction >>>>>>> in which we might move from here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> Workshop 2* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on >>>>>>> principles* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop >>>>>>> some kind >>>>>>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic >>>>>>> nature >>>>>>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent >>>>>>> efforts to >>>>>>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the >>>>>>> U.S. and >>>>>>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>>>>>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>>>>>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>>>>>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - >>>>>>> Openness >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support >>>>>>> role in >>>>>>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA- >>>>>>> based civil >>>>>>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>>>>>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet >>>>>>> Providers >>>>>>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about >>>>>>> later. We >>>>>>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in >>>>>>> particular. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MBG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>> >>>>>>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other >>>>>>>> things I do not >>>>>>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a >>>>>>>> flood of >>>>>>>> >>>>>> support in >>>>>> >>>>>>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage >>>>>>>> you to >>>>>>>> >>>>>> submit >>>>>> >>>>>>>> it in any case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>>>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>>>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>>>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be >>>>>>>>> internationalised. >>>>>>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>>>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to be changed to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>>>>> internationalization. " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>>>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>>>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>>>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>>>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>>>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>>>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach >>>>>>>>> agreement >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>>>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>>>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>>>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>>>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>>>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>>>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>>>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>>>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>>>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>>>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>>>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>>>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>>>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>>>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Parminder >>>>>>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>>>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>>>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand >>>>>>>>> today >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>>>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>>>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>>>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>>>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>>>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>>>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>>>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>>>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>>>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>>>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>>>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>>>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>>>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>>>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>>>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>>>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>>>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>>>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>>>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>>>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>>>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown >>>>>>>>> interest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>>>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>>>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 22 05:57:12 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:27:12 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> Ian/ All I had agreed to internationalisation/ transnationalisation and not transnationalisation alone... It is my view that internationalisation term had enough support for it to have stayed, if with a slash transnationalisation, which is put there to accommodate genuine concern that we may not look like rooting for a pure inter-governmental arrangement. As Bill and Jeanette say below - and they represent two out of the three who gave options to internationalization term - ICANN may itself be an example of an transnational governance. If so, the important connection of this workshop to the debate for new political oversight mechanisms for the ICANN is completely lost, probably reversed. As for the the term globalisation, it may signify too ambitious a transformation, which is my problem with it. Another problem, perhaps the more important one, is the strong connotation of neoliberal economic globalisation that the term carries. I will though be happy with using the term 'democratic globalisation' . That brings me to another point. One accepts that Internet and information society is a new reality and therefore the need for evolutionary terms, which is why I agreed to internationalisation/ transnationalisation. But assertions like "we are aiming at developing international substitutes for democratic institutions" are, sorry to say, absolutely shocking to me. They bring forth the dangers of too much adventurism in such important matters as our governance and political systems. A lot of us are convinced that many of the new governance systems are blatantly undemocratic and inequitous, and represent a dangerous new political ideology. For us, new global governance systems are as much about democracy as the national and sub-national ones are. Democracy is a political theory and ideology before it is a set of specific institutions, and if we are not working towards democratizing global governance systems than we are not working together. So i will like to either bring 'internationalisation' back in the heading along with transnationalisation, or go for 'democratic globalisation of IG'. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: > The two workshops are now submitted. I have gone with transationalisation > for the time being as it seemed to have most support, but I think we all > agree we need a bit more work on this. There appear to be problems with > internationalisation, transationalisation, globalisation, democratisation or > multistakeholderism as ways to express participitative, accountable and > inclusive governance. All of these phrases seem tainted or incomplete for at > least some of us. While I think we agree on the principles we want to see, > the right expression is challenging! > > To be revisited... > > On 22/04/09 12:00 AM, "William Drake" > wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> I agree with dumping "internationalization," it sounds like the >> original Syrian version of the Opinion on IG that the ITU WTPF will >> debate tomorrow here in Lisbon (WSIS II has come early). At the same >> time, "transnationalization" is usually understood to mean trans- >> territorial processes over which states have little or at least >> contestable control, and FWIW in the academic and policy literatures >> "transnational governance" is usually understood to mean private >> sector/nongovernmental governance. By this standard, what we have now >> with ICANN is transnational governance, so calling for >> transnationalization would seem a bit odd. And I don't suspect this >> is what Parminder has in mind, since he was referring to the WGIG >> "oversight" models. >> >> Personally, I'd fudge it and say "globalization" instead. At least >> then nobody will assume they know what we mean and disagree >> accordingly. And I'd still much prefer that if the workshop is >> intended to be about ICANN, we just say ICANN, rather than hiding >> behind verbiage and implicitly conflating ICANN and IG to the >> exclusion of all else---precisely what the caucus worked to challenge >> during WSIS. I don't think it's particularly helpful for us to go >> retrograde, although I'll roll with whatever has support here. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >>> I support both workshop proposal and a replacing of >>> internationalization by transnationalization. Internationalization >>> suggests replacing one government by many governments. >>> Transnationalization would include non-state actors. >>> jeanette >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> I personally have no problem with putting it as >>>> Internationalisation/ transnationalisation >>>> something like " >>>> *Internationalization/ transnationalisation of Internet Governance >>>> - The way forward from >>>> where we stand today * >>>> I know this is last minute, and it is entirely up to the co- >>>> coordinators to take this change or not. But since Milton replied >>>> to my formulation I thought I should state my response/ position on >>>> it. If not changed now, when we send the final formulation in May >>>> we can always do it this way. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>>> I support the basic idea of both Workshops. However, can we use a >>>>> term other than "internationalization" to describe Workshop 1? To >>>>> many, "internationalization" means "takeover by existing >>>>> intergovernmental organizations. Do we mean "transnationalization" >>>>> or globalization" instead? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Graciela Selaimen [mailto:graciela at rits.org.br] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:05 AM >>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>> Internationalisation >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I support the proposal of both workshops. >>>>>> >>>>>> best, >>>>>> Graciela >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder escreveu: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> IGC-ers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IGC has always taken lead in some key political issues at each >>>>>>> IGF, >>>>>>> and it will be rather amiss if we do not do. Moreover, it will >>>>>>> not be >>>>>>> the best outcome of all the energy and time we all devote here >>>>>>> voluntarily for some public interest causes we believe it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I therefore seek views and endorsements for the two workshops >>>>>>> that i >>>>>>> think have a history in IGC's political engagements in global IG >>>>>>> forums, especially the IGF. I am trying to push this at this >>>>>>> late hour >>>>>>> because I do believe ob both these subjects - Network Neutrality >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> Internationalisation of IG - there is a strong support in the IGC, >>>>>>> which for some reasons have not clearly come out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if you do want IGC to sponsor a workshop on these subjects pl >>>>>>> indicate so in the next 24 hours, after which I will request the >>>>>>> coordinators to take a call if enough support for these workshop >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> been forthcoming. While the text of the two workshop, at this >>>>>>> stage >>>>>>> of discussion, is posted below, we must remember that this is an >>>>>>> initial rough proposal stage, and the final text can be changed >>>>>>> to a >>>>>>> considerable extent, within the overall stated subject framework, >>>>>>> later, which we can do over some discussions. On the other hand, >>>>>>> if we >>>>>>> do not submit workshop proposals now they cannot be submitted >>>>>>> ever for >>>>>>> the IGF 4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am only picking up these two workshops to especially advocate >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> them on my behalf within the IGC. Other workshop proposals that >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> moving forward will of course keep doing so, and coordinators >>>>>>> may take >>>>>>> a final decision tomorrow, though i ma not quite sure what the >>>>>>> overall >>>>>>> plan is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Workshop 1 - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Internationalization of Internet Governance - The way forward >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> where we stand today * >>>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures grew out of certain >>>>>>> historical contexts, as well as some new socio-political >>>>>>> realities >>>>>>> around the Internet. In the context of rapid changes that the >>>>>>> Internet has wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>>> governance could not have been anticipated by anyone. One thing >>>>>>> however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a technical >>>>>>> artifact, requiring technical governance with regard to keeping >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> running smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. >>>>>>> It is >>>>>>> important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>>>> internationalization >>>>>>> of IG from various standpoints and the direction in which we >>>>>>> might >>>>>>> move from here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is important to analyze the needs of evolution and >>>>>>> internationalization of IG from various standpoints and the >>>>>>> direction >>>>>>> in which we might move from here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real institutional >>>>>>> possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or who do you >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> should organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> Workshop 2* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>> There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop >>>>>>> some kind >>>>>>> of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic >>>>>>> nature >>>>>>> of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and >>>>>>> others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national >>>>>>> regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational >>>>>>> implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis >>>>>>> developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Relates to theme - >>>>>>> Openness >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> organize it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support >>>>>>> role in >>>>>>> organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based >>>>>>> civil >>>>>>> society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange >>>>>>> (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet >>>>>>> Providers >>>>>>> Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over >>>>>>> principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about >>>>>>> later. We >>>>>>> will seek out additional developing country commentators in >>>>>>> particular. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would support this Workshop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MBG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:45 PM >>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Parminder' >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> At th is stage as we all seem to be occupied with other things >>>>>>>> I do not >>>>>>>> believe IGC can endorse this workshop (unless there is a flood of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> support in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> next 48 hours and no opposition. Parminder, I would encourage >>>>>>>> you to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> submit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> it in any case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 05:12 >>>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder' >>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Parminder. Any more comments on this? I thinkwe need >>>>>>>>> expressions of support for the new wording from a few of >>>>>>>>> those who were not happy with the previous version if we are >>>>>>>>> to submit this as an IGC proposal >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 18 April 2009 03:01 >>>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - >>>>>>>>> Internationalisation of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am fine with this. Just a technical language related point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think we mean IG and not the Internet to be >>>>>>>>> internationalised. >>>>>>>>> Would therefore prefer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative, inclusive >>>>>>>>> and accountable internationalization." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to be changed to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "One thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not >>>>>>>>> just a technical artifact, requiring technical governance >>>>>>>>> with regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key global >>>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon whose governance requires >>>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable internationalization. " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me have one last go at this to see if we >>>>>>>>> can get some acceptable wording . Please let me know if the >>>>>>>>> following draft works, or possible amendments that might make >>>>>>>>> it work. I'm trying to accommodate the range of interesting >>>>>>>>> viewpoints we have on this subject >>>>>>>>> - that is going to require removing some of the concepts >>>>>>>>> which require further discussion or we will not reach agreement >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've changed the original text quite liberally! >>>>>>>>> Let me know if this works >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internationalization of Internet Governance - >>>>>>>>> The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Internet's present governance structures >>>>>>>>> grew out of certain historical contexts, as well as some new >>>>>>>>> socio-political realities around the Internet. In the context >>>>>>>>> of rapid changes that the Internet has wrought, the key and >>>>>>>>> emerging issues related to its governance could not have been >>>>>>>>> anticipated by anyone. One thing however is clear by now; the >>>>>>>>> Internet is not just a technical artifact, requiring >>>>>>>>> technical governance with regard to keeping it running >>>>>>>>> smoothly, but a key socio-political phenomenon requiring >>>>>>>>> participative, inclusive and accountable >>>>>>>>> internationalization. It is important to analyze the needs of >>>>>>>>> evolution and internationalization of IG from various >>>>>>>>> standpoints and the direction in which we might move from here >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some real >>>>>>>>> institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? Or >>>>>>>>> who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IG Caucus would like to organize this workshop.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO Box 429 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bangalow NSW 2479 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Australia >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.ianpeter.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Parminder >>>>>>>>> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 13 April 2009 13:07 >>>>>>>>> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop >>>>>>>>> proposal - Internationalisation of IG >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is an attempted draft for the >>>>>>>>> proposed internationalisation workshop. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Democratic internationalization of >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance - The way forward from where we stand today >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Concise description (up to 200 words) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As the Internet becomes a key factor of >>>>>>>>> reorganizing our social structures, and doing so at a global >>>>>>>>> level as never before, democratic global governance of the >>>>>>>>> Internet is a pressing imperative. Its present governance >>>>>>>>> structures grew out of certain historical contexts, as well >>>>>>>>> as of some new socio-political realities around the Internet. >>>>>>>>> In the context of rapid changes that the Internet has >>>>>>>>> wrought, the key and emerging issues related to its >>>>>>>>> governance, and the correspondingly legitimate governance >>>>>>>>> arrangements, could not have been anticipated by anyone. One >>>>>>>>> thing however is clear by now; the Internet is not just a >>>>>>>>> technical artifact, requiring technical governance with >>>>>>>>> regard to keeping it running smoothly, but a key >>>>>>>>> socio-political phenomenon requiring participative political >>>>>>>>> governance by all people of the world, who are all >>>>>>>>> implicated. However, the direction we move in from here >>>>>>>>> depends on where we stand. It is important to analyze the >>>>>>>>> needs of evolution and internationalization of IG from these >>>>>>>>> dual standpoints. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The workshop will seek to discuss some >>>>>>>>> real institutional possibilities of what to do next, possibly >>>>>>>>> presenting and analyzing alternative models, along with the >>>>>>>>> advantages and disadvantages of each. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Relates to theme - IG, CIRs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Who would you approach as co-organizers >>>>>>>>> ? Or who do you think should organize it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is best that this workshop is >>>>>>>>> organized by civil society actors. IG Caucus will like to >>>>>>>>> organize this workshop, along with some civil society >>>>>>>>> organizations form the North and South that have shown interest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>>>>>> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2028 - Release >>>>>>>>> Date: 3/28/2009 7:16 AM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Apr 22 06:02:34 2009 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:02:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> hi everyone I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and which parts.. ie - igf consultations (May 13-5) - wsis week (May 18-22) - CSTD (May 25-20) karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 22 06:21:43 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:51:43 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <49EEEFB7.3050206@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > >> and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong sentiment >> that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we will need to >> come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire to look for them >> depends on the strength of our belief and conviction in the above >> regard. But if I do have to suggest some models, models 1, 3 and 4 >> suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to start from. > > The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this indicates > what the intended scope is. You're proposing the ws be about ICANN > 'oversight' then? > Hi Bill All the three models mentioned above that were put forward by WGIG report centrally include non -ICANN and non -CIR policy issues. They all refer to wider Internet related public policies. So why do you conclude from my example of possible consideration of such models among others that I am proposing a workshop about ICANN 'oversight' alone. Though, yes, this is one important issue, as is in all the three models mentioned here. >And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present arrangements are not >democratic enough. There are a lot of other bases upon which to critique and call for reforms. Which ones are these 'other bases'? The only real problem for me with a political governance structure can be that either it is not democratic or not effective. Without a clear democratic underpinning, concepts like transparency, accountability are meaningless, mostly even deluding. And when democratic underpinning of a system itself is in question that 'basis' of reform comes first, before all these other dependent 'bases'. 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 06:41:05 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:41:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: I will start by WSIS forum and to close by CSTD : from 18-22 and from 25-30. Baudouin 2009/4/22 karen banks > hi everyone > > I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and > which parts.. ie > > - igf consultations (May 13-5) > - wsis week (May 18-22) > - CSTD (May 25-20) > > karen > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr http://educticafrique.ning.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 06:51:32 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:51:32 +0500 Subject: [governance] Victory for EU Citizens! Amendment 138 was voted again. Message-ID: <701af9f70904220351s1199ac71s3cd050d011f09a6b@mail.gmail.com> Congrats to the IG activists in EU Victory for EU Citizens! Amendment 138 was voted again. Source: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/victory-for-eu-citizens-amendement-138-was-voted-again Submitted by pi on 21 April, 2009 - 20:30. Captioned Picture: MEP C. Trautmann courageously stood for our freedoms. Strasbourg, April 21 2009 - Once again, the European Parliament has demonstrated it can resist pressure and stand for the rights and freedoms of citizens. Amendment 138 (now renumbered amendment 46) was adopted today in ITRE committe, in Strasbourg. Amendement 138/46-135 states that restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities (save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent). It was adopted last September by an overwhelming majority of the European Parliament, and approved by the European Commission despite explicit requests from the French Presidency to reject it. The European Council has rejected it further to pressure of the French government and some disinformation by in-house Council lawyers on its claimed contradiction with existing National law. Despite strong pressure to reach a compromise on the framework directive of the Telecoms Package, the ITRE committee of the European Parliament has today adopted again amendment 138/46, by a strong majority of 40 against 4. One will have to monitor closely further proceedings to be sure that this vote is confirmed in plenary, but it is a strong and clear signal. According to Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net: "The European citizens will remember this courageous stand. Members of the European parliament honoured their mandates by standing courageously for citizens' rights and freedoms. This is one more blow to Nicolas Sarkozy's 'three strikes' or 'HADOPI' law in France, and a strong sign that nobody in Europe will want to pass such a stupid legislation going against progress, citizens' rights and common sense.". Philippe Aigrain, also co-founder of La Quadrature du Net concludes: "We will also follow with great attention the negociations in a future conciliation committee to make impossible for the Council to endanger other aspects of the telecom packet such as equitable networking. It is time for Member States to realize that the economy and society can benefit together from an open infrastructure and a strong affirmation of rights.". Many thanks to all European citizens who have rallied to have their rights and freedoms protected by the European representative democracy by confirming the following text:“applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.” -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 22 07:03:34 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:03:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <4A0807B8-7173-4843-A9C6-0F8F6367A38D@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Karen, On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, karen banks wrote: > hi everyone > > I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and > which parts.. ie > > - igf consultations (May 13-5) > - wsis week (May 18-22) > - CSTD (May 25-20) I'll be around, and suggested, On Apr 15, 2009, at 7:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > I don't recall whether this has been raised here before, but people > who are still subscribed to the old WSIS-CS list will know that > UNCTAD and ITU staff say it is possible for organizations to put > together side events during the upcoming WSIS Forum in Geneva. > Apparently Thursday 21st has been set aside for thematic workshops > and it looks like there are still a number of open slots. The IGC > could do something on a hot topic---in a space where a lot of reps > from most governments, including a lot of non-IGF regulars, will be > milling around----if enough of us will be staying in town to have > critical mass (alas, it's the following week from the IGF > consultation)... But only one person responded they'd be here during WSIS week. Will APCers be sticking around? If so, any interest in proposing something? It seems a pity to be offered an opportunity like this and not take it... Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 22 07:24:40 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:24:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <4A0807B8-7173-4843-A9C6-0F8F6367A38D@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> <4A0807B8-7173-4843-A9C6-0F8F6367A38D@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: I'll be there on Tuesday and Wednesday. Looking forward to it. Adam >Hi Karen, > >On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, karen banks wrote: >>hi everyone >> >>I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and >>which parts.. ie >> >>- igf consultations (May 13-5) >>- wsis week (May 18-22) >>- CSTD (May 25-20) > >I'll be around, and suggested, > >On Apr 15, 2009, at 7:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >>Hi, >> >>I don't recall whether this has been raised >>here before, but people who are still >>subscribed to the old WSIS-CS list will know >>that UNCTAD and ITU staff say it is possible >>for organizations to put together side events >>during the upcoming WSIS Forum in Geneva.   >>Apparently Thursday 21st has been set aside for >>thematic workshops and it looks like there are >>still a number of open slots. The IGC could do >>something on a hot topic---in a space where a >>lot of reps from most governments, including a >>lot of non-IGF regulars, will be milling >>around----if enough of us will be staying in >>town to have critical mass (alas, it's the >>following week from the IGF consultation)... > >But only one person responded they'd be here >during WSIS week. Will APCers be sticking >around? If so, any interest in proposing >something? It seems a pity to be offered an >opportunity like this and not take it... > >Bill >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Wed Apr 22 07:25:19 2009 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:25:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3752A3F8@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Looks like I’ll be there on Thursday 21st , we have a library session lined up as part of the WSIS forum, 11.00am – 12.30, more details to follow… Stuart Hamilton Senior Policy Advisor International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 http://blogs.prodigio.nl/stuart/ From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? hi everyone I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and which parts.. ie - igf consultations (May 13-5) - wsis week (May 18-22) - CSTD (May 25-20) karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 22 07:31:03 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:31:03 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49EEEFB7.3050206@itforchange.net> References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> <49EEEFB7.3050206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Parminder On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi Parminder >> >>> and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong >>> sentiment that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we >>> will need to come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire >>> to look for them depends on the strength of our belief and >>> conviction in the above regard. But if I do have to suggest some >>> models, models 1, 3 and 4 suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to >>> start from. >> >> The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this >> indicates what the intended scope is. You're proposing the ws be >> about ICANN 'oversight' then? >> > Hi Bill > > All the three models mentioned above that were put forward by WGIG > report centrally include non -ICANN and non -CIR policy issues. > They all refer to wider Internet related public policies. So why do > you conclude from my example of possible consideration of such > models among others that I am proposing a workshop about ICANN > 'oversight' alone. Though, yes, this is one important issue, as is > in all the three models mentioned here. Yes, in principle they weren't necessarily restricted in scope, which reflected in no small measure the efforts of the IGC and others to push the notion of IG beyond ICANN and CIR. But in practice, the governmentals who proposed these models really were fundamentally thinking about ICANN. Model 1's "Global Internet Council" was "to replace the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee;" model 3's "International Internet Council" was to "fulfill the corresponding functions, especially in relation to ICANN/IANA competencies," to address "international public policy issues that do not fall within the scope of other existing intergovernmental organizations" (meaning CIR), and "could make the Governmental Advisory Committee redundant;" and model 4's World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was to exercise an "oversight function over the body responsible, at the global level, for the technical and operational functioning of Internet (ICANN)" and replace GAC. It was pretty clear to everyone what we were talking about. So when you suggest we need to look at these, and have a workshop proposal that says "present governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts" and need "democratic internationalization," it seemed reasonable to conclude you were talking about ICANN. If you meant more than that I stand corrected, but I the ws description and discussion here seemed to suggest otherwise. So which other governance structures was the language alluding to? It'd be helpful to know, since the IGC will need to agree what the session's about if it's approved. > > > >And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution > necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present > arrangements are not >democratic enough. There are a lot of other > bases upon which to critique and call for reforms. > > Which ones are these 'other bases'? The only real problem for me > with a political governance structure can be that either it is not > democratic or not effective. Without a clear democratic > underpinning, concepts like transparency, accountability are > meaningless, mostly even deluding. And when democratic > underpinning of a system itself is in question that 'basis' of > reform comes first, before all these other dependent 'bases'. One can argue for global public interest objectives and criteria without framing them in terms of "democratization," and indeed the caucus has long done so. We've argued for balancing inter-national interests, business/public interests, transparency, accountability, inclusive MS participation, and so on without such grounding. None of which is incompatible with your conception of the term, it's just that there's no necessarily intrinsic equation of the terms. Ok, need to listen to the Russian minister... Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Apr 22 07:43:29 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:43:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3752A3F8@mfp01.IFLA.lan> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3752A3F8@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <49EF02E1.6040909@rits.org.br> I should attend the WSIS event at the ITU. --c.a. Stuart Hamilton wrote: > Looks like I’ll be there on Thursday 21st , we have a library session lined up as part of the WSIS forum, 11.00am – 12.30, more details to follow… > > > > > > Stuart Hamilton > > Senior Policy Advisor > > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions > > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > > Netherlands > > > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > http://blogs.prodigio.nl/stuart/ > > > > > > > > From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:03 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? > > > > hi everyone > > I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and > which parts.. ie > > - igf consultations (May 13-5) > - wsis week (May 18-22) > - CSTD (May 25-20) > > karen > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hkawa at attglobal.net Wed Apr 22 08:07:48 2009 From: hkawa at attglobal.net (Hiroshi Kawamura) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:07:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <00d701c9c342$f93d93f0$ebb8bbd0$@net> I will be there during WSIS Forum week only. Best Hiroshi Kawamura DAISY Consortium From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? hi everyone I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and which parts.. ie - igf consultations (May 13-5) - wsis week (May 18-22) - CSTD (May 25-20) karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Apr 22 10:15:54 2009 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:15:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] The DNS is a tempting target for control... In-Reply-To: <20090421111954.GA5149@nic.fr> (Stephane Bortzmeyer's message of "Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:19:54 +0200") References: <20090421111954.GA5149@nic.fr> Message-ID: <877i1clqp1.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> >>>>> "stephane" == Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > Here is a candid claim that controllers should mess with the DNS > to implement their policy: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090420_time_to_supplement_desktop_security_protections/ It is completely unclear (at least to me) how DNS-based "protection" would actually work. Besides implementing domain- or IP-based filtering - which works only for a tiny minority of actual threats - what would be the practical added value? Ciao, -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 13:06:00 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:06:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486936@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0904210722s5dea6545hf59cf6ed206c7170@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0904221006u69f845d0t431f609f446fcae@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, Miltion, for posting this. It is important, to make a fair evaluation of this proposal, to discuss the actual text : in particular, the reference to foreign pressure is less general than previous comments seemed to imply and the text confirms that this concerns the IANA contract only. Does not belittle the importance of this proposal, but it's important to get the intention clear. The interesting part you were refering to in earlier posts is below : ** *Sec. 8 – Review of NTIA domain name contracts * This section would require the Advisory Panel to review and approve the renewal or modification of the Internet Assigned Number Authority contract to ensure that U.S. national security is not compromised. Analysis—This provision relates to the contract that the Department of Commerce has with the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to manage and administer the domain name system, which is at the heart of the Internet. This provision is to make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure to unilaterally release itself of its relationship with the U.S. government. Hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > It's attached. Now it's "published" > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:23 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Fouad Bajwa > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet > Governance > > Milton, > > When you say "published", does that mean this is accessible on the Web ? > > Any link pointin to this summary ? > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The summary is the official section-by-section one published by the >> Congressional staffers who drafted it. >> >> The actual bill mentions NTIA and the IANA, which is a subsidiary of ICANN >> or function performed by ICANN. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:57 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet >> Governance and >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa >> wrote: >> >> >> >> According to a summary of the bill, it >> would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to >> end its relationship with the U.S. government. >> >> ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach >> to cybersecurity. >> >> >> >> According to "a summary" of the bill ? Summary from whom? ICANN may be >> mentioned in that summary, but is ICANN mentioned in the BIl ? >> >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 13:32:48 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:02:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <954259bd0904221006u69f845d0t431f609f446fcae@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486936@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0904210722s5dea6545hf59cf6ed206c7170@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0904221006u69f845d0t431f609f446fcae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Miltion, for posting this. > > It is important, to make a fair evaluation of this proposal, to discuss the > actual text : in particular, the reference to foreign pressure is less > general than previous comments seemed to imply and the text confirms that > this concerns the IANA contract only. Does not belittle the importance of > this proposal, but it's important to get the intention clear. > > The interesting part you were refering to in earlier posts is below : > ** > *Sec. 8 – Review of NTIA domain name contracts* > > This section would require the Advisory Panel to review and approve the > renewal or modification of the Internet Assigned Number Authority contract > to ensure that U.S. national security is not compromised. > > Analysis—This provision relates to the contract that the Department of > Commerce has with the International Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) to manage and administer the domain name system, which is > at the heart of the Internet. This provision is to make sure that ICANN > does not succumb to foreign pressure to unilaterally release itself of its > relationship with the U.S. government. > > Irrespective of whether this "summary" could be taken as a fair reflection of the essence of the actual text, I am curious about the the mention of "ICANN ... unilaterally release itself of its relationship with the US Government". Perhaps this could rather be taken as a reflection of the growing awareness within US Government that its persistence over ICANN through the JPA could lead to a situation where it could become a possible course of action for ICANN to unilaterally assert its independence from the US Government as an International Organization with an International Purpose? And what does "foreign pressure" actually translates as? International Opinion? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> It's attached. Now it's "published" >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:23 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller >> *Cc:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Fouad Bajwa >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet >> Governance >> >> Milton, >> >> When you say "published", does that mean this is accessible on the Web ? >> >> Any link pointin to this summary ? >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> The summary is the official section-by-section one published by the >>> Congressional staffers who drafted it. >>> >>> The actual bill mentions NTIA and the IANA, which is a subsidiary of >>> ICANN or function performed by ICANN. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:57 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet >>> Governance and >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> According to a summary of the bill, it >>> would "make sure that ICANN does not succumb to foreign pressure" to >>> end its relationship with the U.S. government. >>> >>> ICANN is only one part of a comprehensive and authoritarian approach >>> to cybersecurity. >>> >>> >>> >>> According to "a summary" of the bill ? Summary from whom? ICANN may be >>> mentioned in that summary, but is ICANN mentioned in the BIl ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> @skBajwa >>> Answering all your technology questions >>> http://www.askbajwa.com >>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >> Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From a.beccalli at unesco.org Wed Apr 22 13:35:34 2009 From: a.beccalli at unesco.org (Beccalli, Andrea) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:35:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <00d701c9c342$f93d93f0$ebb8bbd0$@net> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> <00d701c9c342$f93d93f0$ebb8bbd0$@net> Message-ID: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660599A8C@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Dear All, I am working at the preparation of the WSIS Forum 2009 along with ITU, UNCTAD, UNESCO and several UN Agencies we are preparing a whole new format for the WSIS follow-up focused on the Implementation of the Action Lines to reach the WSIS goals, I invite you to keep an eye on the new WSIS website for updated informations: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2009/forum/geneva/index.html Thursday 21 is open for multistakeholder worshop proposals, we invite all interested stakeholder to take this occasion to propose sessions focused on implementation of the WSIS Action Lines. We suggest to follow the major themes of the WSIS forum 2009: * ICT for Internationally agreed development goals * Accessing Knowledge * Financial mechanisms in the economic downturn * ICT applications for a better life * ICT and Climate Change * Cybersecurity The number of workshops is limited by the availability of rooms at ITU Headquarters; please liaise with Jaroslaw Ponder (jaroslaw.ponder at itu.int), for submitting proposals. Some new features of the WSIS Forum 2009 include: - High-level panels and expert discussions on the main themes - Opening ceremony and reception - Networking opportunities with Speed Exchange lunch meetings Best, Andrea Andrea Beccalli Associate Expert Information Society Division Communication and Information Sector United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1, rue Miollis 75732 Paris cedex 15 Tel: +33(0)1 45 68 42 87 a.beccalli at unesco.org ________________________________ From: Hiroshi Kawamura [mailto:hkawa at attglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'karen banks' Subject: RE: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? I will be there during WSIS Forum week only. Best Hiroshi Kawamura DAISY Consortium From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? hi everyone I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and which parts.. ie - igf consultations (May 13-5) - wsis week (May 18-22) - CSTD (May 25-20) karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jfcallo at isocperu.org Wed Apr 22 16:05:05 2009 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:05:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660599A8C@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> <00d701c9c342$f93d93f0$ebb8bbd0$@net> <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660599A8C@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Message-ID: <20090422160505.2760yez3s44g4og4@www.isocperu.org> Dear Sirs, I inform you that from May 18th to May 22th, it will take place in Lima, Peru, the Fifth International Technological Week and its respective expofair in which telecommunications companies, computing and related ones are going to take place. I will be grateful you could share this information among your lists. Kind regards, Jose F. Callo Romero Coordinator Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Apr 22 16:26:28 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:26:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> <4A0807B8-7173-4843-A9C6-0F8F6367A38D@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <3DDE1CA91F7E438189A8C7F99FD88703@PCbureau> Hi Bill I'll attend the WSIS forum from Monday 18th to Friday 22nd. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Drake" To: ; "karen banks" Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? > > Hi Karen, > > On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, karen banks wrote: >> hi everyone >> >> I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and >> which parts.. ie >> >> - igf consultations (May 13-5) >> - wsis week (May 18-22) >> - CSTD (May 25-20) > > I'll be around, and suggested, > > On Apr 15, 2009, at 7:59 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I don't recall whether this has been raised here before, but people >> who are still subscribed to the old WSIS-CS list will know that >> UNCTAD and ITU staff say it is possible for organizations to put >> together side events during the upcoming WSIS Forum in Geneva. >> Apparently Thursday 21st has been set aside for thematic workshops >> and it looks like there are still a number of open slots. The IGC >> could do something on a hot topic---in a space where a lot of reps >> from most governments, including a lot of non-IGF regulars, will be >> milling around----if enough of us will be staying in town to have >> critical mass (alas, it's the following week from the IGF >> consultation)... > > But only one person responded they'd be here during WSIS week. Will > APCers be sticking around? If so, any interest in proposing > something? It seems a pity to be offered an opportunity like this and > not take it... > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 00:37:05 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:37:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] What would this mean for the Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <954259bd0904221006u69f845d0t431f609f446fcae@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70904191118w63061652x5b832f811a9a9a1a@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486936@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0904210722s5dea6545hf59cf6ed206c7170@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADBB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0904221006u69f845d0t431f609f446fcae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Miltion, for posting this. > > It is important, to make a fair evaluation of this proposal, to discuss the > actual text : in particular, the reference to foreign pressure is less > general than previous comments seemed to imply and the text confirms that > this concerns the IANA contract only. Does not belittle the importance of > this proposal, but it's important to get the intention clear. > Correct, but the folk who wrote it suffer from the misconception that: a) ICANN "manages and administers" the DNS (they don't actually, they just administer one very small, unique bit of it. and b) the DNS is "the heart of the Internet", (it's not, routers announcing IP addresses via ASNs are the "heart". Much more interesting to me is their "political" view in the next section: "This section requires the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to develop a strategy to implement a secure domain name addressing system. Analysis—There has been widespread disagreement as to how we should implement DNSSEC, a secure version of the domain name system. This is presumably something that ICANN should lead on, but since the organization has failed in this regard, it would be appropriate for the federal government to step in and improve the security of the Internet." More fodder for a blog post by Brendan methinks. -- Cheers, McTim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 23 01:45:11 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:15:11 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <49F00067.8000000@itforchange.net> Hi Garth Garth Graham wrote: > > I know this doesn't help at this late date, but I see international / > transnational / global as beside the point - which is the Internet's > inherent capacity to support distributed self-organizing > relationships. All three of those words are hierarchical, and > therefore move Internet governance out of the frying pan of first > principles about open relational choice and into the fire of closed > and absolute systems of political authority. there is a whole world between 'open relational choice' and 'closed and absolute systems of political authority' and the tragedy about IG is that most of the civil society is struck between these two extremes. And consequently failing to provide lead for new possible institutional models that serve the pubic interest best. I fear that we will lose a lot because of this stance, and end up with default ITU kind of a model. > Political governance that does not acknowledge a shift towards > relational self-organization as a different approach to governance is > not going to be good Internet Governance. Sorry to quote the unfortunate parallel, but the US finance system tried exactly that. A self-organizing approach! With regulation made into a dirty word. BTW remember that the financial sector did what it did using an ICT infrastructure, producing such an inhuman complexity of 'self-organizing'. Using an ICT framework with its often mythical self-management of complexity taking equal regard of all interests has produced untold misery, most of all for the world's poor. Financial sector was also trying to replace 'governance' (human and political) by ICT based self-organising. I don't know where all those who blithely sold this idea in the financial sector are hiding now. The least they can do is to show up and accept responsibility. I also do hope this teaches all of us, in important global political spaces, and in many ways being able to influence things on behalf of the world's unorganized mass, to take things more seriously. Let us be sensitive to our responsibilities that we may not end up contributing to the designs of the strong dominant forces that are at present using the Internet as a vehicle of unprecedented control and domination towards an even more un-eqaul world. Graham, I am conscious of your community based work, and your views and work in the area of community empowerment. But we are in a situation that many of the most important decisions today need to be taken by the world community together. And we need political processes that ensure that such decisions are democratic, fair and equitable. > To put that another way, does anybody believe that "world" government > can be "accountable political governance?" > It isnt easy, and that is the challenge in front of all of us. and I believe that civil society should take the lead in developing and suggesting alternatives, and not remain caught in the paralysis it mostly seem to be stuck in at present. But to the put the question back to you, do you think a self-organizing governance at the global level can be accountable and fair governance. I am very sure that it cannot be. Quite the opposite; self-organizing is used as a ruse to discredit political governance, so that the march of the dominant forces toward even more absolute domination remains institutionally and morally unbridled. 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Thu Apr 23 12:16:58 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:16:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone I¹ll be there the second week, for wsis. I feel concerned that our numbers are dwindling as these events protract and our civil society stamina is put to the test.... Divina Le 22/04/09 12:02, « karen banks » a écrit : > hi everyone > > I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and > which parts.. ie > > - igf consultations (May 13-5) > - wsis week (May 18-22) > - CSTD (May 25-20) > > karen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Thu Apr 23 13:56:57 2009 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:56:57 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <49F00067.8000000@itforchange.net> References: <49EC5F7C.4050304@itforchange.net> <49EC80F3.9010401@rits.org.br> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486937@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <49ED7B0F.6020800@itforchange.net> <49ED7D8E.90200@wzb.eu> <49F00067.8000000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <72917E63-262A-4D27-8B31-B5CE0DE378C5@telus.net> On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Garth Graham wrote: >> I know this doesn't help at this late date, but I see >> international / transnational / global as beside the point - which >> is the Internet's inherent capacity to support distributed self- >> organizing relationships. >> On 21-Apr-09, at 7:00 AM, William Drake wrote >> Well, that's a point, but the point was the one we were discussing. Apparently not! .... because then, on 22-Apr-09, at 10:45 PM, Parminder wrote: > Garth Graham wrote: >> To put that another way, does anybody believe that "world" >> government can be "accountable political governance?" >> > ...... But to the put the question back to you, do you think a self- > organizing governance at the global level can be accountable and > fair governance. I am very sure that it cannot be. Quite the > opposite; self-organizing is used as a ruse to discredit political > governance, so that the march of the dominant forces toward even > more absolute domination remains institutionally and morally > unbridled. I believe that many local forms of governance can be made accountable through responsible citizen action, but that any and all "global" forms of governance cannot. But your view of the role and significance of self-organization seems to be wildly divergent from my own. I see relational self-organization as inherent in such things as the roots of Internet Protocol, the IETF credo of "rough consensus and running code," and Benkler's “commons-based peer production." I'd see finding a common understanding of the relevance of self- organizing systems to be central to what ISOC is calling, "The Internet Model of Internet Governance." Thus my later suggestion that the title could be, "Interdependencies and Internet Governance." I hear your identification of it as a focus of resistance as at odds with that. If an IG Caucus is struggling to both increase and decrease these elements of effective Internet Governance then, yes, gaining "clarity" of intention really does need to proceed with great care! It's my experience that the tolerance of the "Internet Technical Community" (an unfortunately limiting phrase) for "philosophy" is actually quite low. So I'm reluctant to address definition. However, if anybody wants to go there, the best short introduction I've found (12 minutes 25 seconds) to a relational world view and its implications for the future of democracy is: Lee Smolin. How science is like democracy. Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED), Filmed Feb 2003; Posted Nov 2008. http://www.ted.com/ index.php/talks/lee_smolin_on_science_and_democracy.html Smolin says, "There is no place to put an explanation of something that comes from outside a system. Somehow the system makes itself." And several times, I have posted my own musings on how relational self-organization of distributed systems applies to Internet Governance to this list. Perhaps the most complete summary of those can be found in the list archives at: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00073.html From: Garth Graham Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other... Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:40:58 -0800 If anyone does go to the archive to retrieve that, don't forget to open the pdf attached at the end, on future scenarios for Internet Governance. GG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 17:11:07 2009 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:11:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <947a5260904180155g79132fc1nf4a29557a73485f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <947a5260904180155g79132fc1nf4a29557a73485f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <609019df0904231411x17d9a776i2386a9117d440c82@mail.gmail.com> Congratulation Milton and all the best. Qusai On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Elena Pavan wrote: > congratulations! > elena > > 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > >> FYI >> http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Dr. Elena Pavan > DSRS University of Trento > Via Verdi n. 26 > 38100 Trento > GigaNet Secretary > http://giganet.igloogroups.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 wcurrie at apc.org Thu Apr 23 19:10:27 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:10:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <609019df0904231411x17d9a776i2386a9117d440c82@mail.gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E0A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <947a5260904180155g79132fc1nf4a29557a73485f5@mail.gmail.com> <609019df0904231411x17d9a776i2386a9117d440c82@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49F0F563.805@apc.org> Congratulations, Milton! Willie Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Congratulation Milton and all the best. > > Qusai > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Elena Pavan > wrote: > > congratulations! > elena > > 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > > > FYI > http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 > > 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Elena Pavan > DSRS University of Trento > Via Verdi n. 26 > 38100 Trento > GigaNet Secretary > http://giganet.igloogroups.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 shailam at yahoo.com Thu Apr 23 19:42:26 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton Message-ID: <63708.64678.qm@web54306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Congratulations Milton  on your Award !! No doubt well deserved. Shaila Rao Mistry,   Input Technology With A Human Touch Jayco Interface Technology, Inc. Jayco mmi, Inc. www.jaycopanels.com                        ________________________________ From: Willie Currie To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Qusai AlShatti Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:10:27 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations to Milton Congratulations, Milton! Willie Qusai AlShatti wrote: Congratulation Milton and all the best. Qusai On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Elena Pavan wrote: congratulations! elena 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" FYI http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 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 -- Dr. Elena Pavan DSRS University of Trento Via Verdi n. 26 38100 Trento GigaNet Secretary http://giganet.igloogroups.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 iza at anr.org Thu Apr 23 20:19:26 2009 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:19:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <63708.64678.qm@web54306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <63708.64678.qm@web54306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What a good news, congratulations, Milton!! izumi 2009/4/24 shaila mistry : > Congratulations Milton  on your Award !! No doubt well deserved. > > > > Shaila Rao Mistry, > > > > Input Technology With A Human Touch > > Jayco Interface Technology, Inc. > > Jayco mmi, Inc. > > www.jaycopanels.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Willie Currie > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Qusai AlShatti > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:10:27 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations to Milton > > Congratulations, Milton! > Willie > > Qusai AlShatti wrote: > > Congratulation Milton and all the best. > > Qusai > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Elena Pavan wrote: >> >> congratulations! >> elena >> >> 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> >>> >>> FYI >>> http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Elena Pavan >> DSRS University of Trento >> Via Verdi n. 26 >> 38100 Trento >> GigaNet Secretary >> http://giganet.igloogroups.org/ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From divina.meigs at orange.fr Fri Apr 24 03:21:28 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:21:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Milton In-Reply-To: <609019df0904231411x17d9a776i2386a9117d440c82@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Milton! Well deserved! Divina >> >> >> 2009/4/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> >> >>> >>> FYI >>> http://ischool.syr.edu/newsroom/news.aspx?recid=658 >>> >>> 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 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 24 03:42:31 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:42:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] possible replacement for Amb David Gross Message-ID: Verveer May Fill State Dept. Telecom Slot (National Journal's Tech Daily Dose 4/23/09 11:20 PM) In the next few months it is expected that Philip Verveer will become the State Department's next U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, according to sources familiar with the matter. Verveer will be filling the shoes of David Gross, who held the title of coordinator since 2001. The position also comes with the title of "ambassador." Sources say the White House is currently doing a background check of Verveer and his nomination will also be subject to approval by the Senate in addition to the administration. Verveer is currently counsel at the firm Jenner & Block's litigation department [bio ]. He is also a member of the firm's communications practice with a focus on regulatory and antitrust issues. Verveer has nearly three decades advising clients on communication regulatory issues before Congress, the FCC, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Office of U.S. Trade Representative, Federal Trade Commission, the State Department, and the Committee on Foreign Investment. Verveer, who served in the military, also worked as a partner in the Washington office of Willkie Farr & Gallagher where he founded the firm's communications practice. He has also served as a trial attorney in the Justice Department's antitrust division, a supervisory attorney in the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and as the chief of the cable bureau at the FCC. He earned his law degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 1969 and is married to Melanne Verveer, who was Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff when she was first lady. President Obama has tapped her to be his ambassador at large for global women's issues. -- Winter Casey ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Apr 24 14:59:56 2009 From: jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hunker) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:59:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] upcoming conference on the Internet of the Future; with call for papers Prague September 15-17 2009 Message-ID: <008601c9c50e$dc333fd0$9499bf70$@cmu.edu> Thought that this would be of interest to some of the governance list serve readers. You can contact me, Jeffrey Hunker, at jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu if you have any questions. Second International ICST Symposium on Global Information Governance (ISGIG) Conflict and Collaboration in Compliance, Governance and Risk ISGIG 2009 - the Internet of the Future Prague, Czech Republic 15th, 16th, and morning of 17th September 2009 www.isgig.org The explosion in the use of broadband over the last 5 years has connected people, organizations, commercial firms, and government agencies throughout the world. The large number of devices connected to the networks has changed the Internet to a "network of things and computers". These trends, plus the rise of collaborative technologies, virtual worlds and tele-presence raise issues of privacy, management, compliance, governance, and risk. The Internet of the Future is the theme of ISGIG 2009. Specifically, its goal is to improve communication among academics, regulators, compliance officers, business managers and IT managers by exposing problems, and uncovering potential problems, in the areas of privacy, compliance, governance, and risk. Each of these issues creates situations for both conflict and cooperation between different constituencies. This conference is an opportunity to advance models of effective management and collaboration. The conference will rely on a judicious mix of research papers, invited speakers and structured discussions to extend the communities' communication and identify opportunities for mutually beneficial outcomes. Special Sessions: There will be three special sessions with a suggested format of a workshop of 3 short sessions of 20 minutes on the session topic followed by a 30-minute panel discussion. Topics are: Cyber Terrorism: Increasing connected devices increases the scope for damage. With the future of the internet there are more critical devices (freezers and food storage, water and power meters) that may become vulnerable. Green Computing: Critical issues identified in Green governance, low energy computing and how you prove it, governance for carbon trading. Managing Change in the Internet of the Future (r)evolution: As the future internet evolves there are likely to be large scale changes made in business and regulation. This session will look at the possible changes and the conflict and collaborative issues that they may generate. Call for papers The explosion in the use of broadband over the last 5 years has connected people, organizations, commercial firms, and government agencies throughout the world. The large number of devices connected to the networks has changed the Internet to a "network of things and computers". These trends, plus the rise of collaborative technologies, virtual worlds and tele-presence raise issues of privacy, management, compliance, governance, and risk. The Internet of the Future is the theme of ISGIG 2009. Specifically, its goal is to improve communication among academics, regulators, compliance officers, business managers and IT managers by exposing problems, and uncovering potential problems, in the areas of privacy, compliance, governance, and risk. Each of these issues creates situations for both conflict and cooperation between different constituencies. This conference is an opportunity to advance models of effective management and collaboration. The conference will rely on a judicious mix of research papers, invited speakers and structured discussions to extend the communities' communication and identify opportunities for mutually beneficial outcomes. Topics of Interest We invite researchers, academicians, practitioners, and others to submit original papers describing new research, applications, or case studies. Papers covering technical, legal, societal, or other aspects of these areas are solicited. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Frameworks and Overarching Issues of Network Governance o Privacy - a pervading issue o Attribution and identify management; anonymity and ID * Physical and policy infrastructure of the Internet, and its role governance: o Designing, building, and managing changes to the Internet infrastructure; o National and regional frameworks for IT governance o Compliance with government regulations for multi-national corporations and networks; * Emerging issues, including o Cyber-terrorism and cyber-crime; o Virtual worlds, and the development of new modes of social and economic interaction that challenge how we translate physical world structures into virtual worlds; o Green computing; o Collaborative tools, and their use in politics and e-government. * Security and anticipating and responding to attacks that cross international boundaries; cyber crime * Other emerging areas for conflict and cooperation in the evolving Internet Important Dates Abstracts due (optional but encouraged): March 20, 2009 Full Papers due: April 17, 2009 Submission deadline extended to: May 1, 2009 Author notification with reviewer's comments: June 5, 2009 Final revised papers due in camera-ready format: June 19, 2009 Conference: September 15-17, 2009 How to Submit Papers should be submitted to www.assyst-online.org by April 17. Papers of any length are encouraged, but a preferred length is 10 pages (not including citations) on letter or A4 with one inch margins and 11 point font. All submissions will be peer reviewed, and acceptances will be provided by May 22. Publication The Proceedings from ISGIG 2009 will be published in LNICST and appear in SpringerLink and ICST's digital library, the EU-DL. Organizing Committee Jeffrey Hunker, General Chair, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Michael Froomkin, Co-chair, University of Miami, USA Matt Bishop, Co-chair, University of California Davis, USA Herbert Burkert, Program Committee, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland Ian Kerr, Program Committee, University of Ottawa, Canada Ronald Leenes, Program Committee, Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands Jeffrey Hunker Distinguished Service Professor of Technology and Public Policy Heinz School of Public Policy and Management Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 412 268 4897 202 257 7778 (cell) jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu hunker at jeffreyhunker.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 raquelgatto at uol.com.br Sat Apr 25 20:43:18 2009 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (raquelgatto) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:43:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] IV GigaNet Annual Symposium, Egypt - Call for Papers Message-ID: <49f3ae267a482_442f1555555879b4663@weasel3.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Giganet - Call for Papers.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 85924 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 mazzone at ebu.ch Sun Apr 26 13:43:10 2009 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:43:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? References: <49EEE9F8.3070702@itforchange.net> <20090422100245.96F0A33F4FF@mail.gn.apc.org> <00d701c9c342$f93d93f0$ebb8bbd0$@net> <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660599A8C@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A24EAE61@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> I shall attend IGF meetings and most of WSIS week meetings, except on May 21st. Giacomo Mazzone EBU From: Beccalli, Andrea [mailto:a.beccalli at unesco.org] Sent: mercredi, 22. avril 2009 19:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: jaroslaw.ponder at itu.int; Wachholz, Cedric Subject: RE: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? Dear All, I am working at the preparation of the WSIS Forum 2009 along with ITU, UNCTAD, UNESCO and several UN Agencies we are preparing a whole new format for the WSIS follow-up focused on the Implementation of the Action Lines to reach the WSIS goals, I invite you to keep an eye on the new WSIS website for updated informations: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2009/forum/geneva/index.html Thursday 21 is open for multistakeholder worshop proposals, we invite all interested stakeholder to take this occasion to propose sessions focused on implementation of the WSIS Action Lines. We suggest to follow the major themes of the WSIS forum 2009: · ICT for Internationally agreed development goals · Accessing Knowledge · Financial mechanisms in the economic downturn · ICT applications for a better life · ICT and Climate Change · Cybersecurity The number of workshops is limited by the availability of rooms at ITU Headquarters; please liaise with Jaroslaw Ponder (jaroslaw.ponder at itu.int), for submitting proposals. Some new features of the WSIS Forum 2009 include: - High-level panels and expert discussions on the main themes - Opening ceremony and reception - Networking opportunities with Speed Exchange lunch meetings Best, Andrea Andrea Beccalli Associate Expert Information Society Division Communication and Information Sector United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1, rue Miollis 75732 Paris cedex 15 Tel: +33(0)1 45 68 42 87 a.beccalli at unesco.org _____ From: Hiroshi Kawamura [mailto:hkawa at attglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'karen banks' Subject: RE: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? I will be there during WSIS Forum week only. Best Hiroshi Kawamura DAISY Consortium From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: [governance] Who is attending May Events in Geneva? hi everyone I'm wondering who is planning to attend the may events in geneva, and which parts.. ie - igf consultations (May 13-5) - wsis week (May 18-22) - CSTD (May 25-20) karen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 27 07:42:49 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:12:49 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> <49EEEFB7.3050206@itforchange.net> <85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <49F59A39.1050809@itforchange.net> Hi Bill >> >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Parminder >>> >> Hi Bill >> >> All the three models mentioned above that were put forward by WGIG >> report centrally include non -ICANN and non -CIR policy issues. >> They all refer to wider Internet related public policies. So why do >> you conclude from my example of possible consideration of such models >> among others that I am proposing a workshop about ICANN 'oversight' >> alone. Though, yes, this is one important issue, as is in all the >> three models mentioned here. > > Yes, in principle they weren't necessarily restricted in scope, which > reflected in no small measure the efforts of the IGC and others to > push the notion of IG beyond ICANN and CIR. If IGC was indeed pushing for non CIR issues to be in global political IG models, than there is no reasons for anyone to think that I would be thinking otherwise in suggesting that inter alia these models may also be revisited. > But in practice, the governmentals who proposed these models really > were fundamentally thinking about ICANN. Doesnt matter. I am not in those governments who were doing this. We cannot allow those governments to determine the whole agenda and merely be reactive to them. > Model 1's "Global Internet Council" was "to replace the ICANN > Governmental Advisory Committee;" model 3's "International Internet > Council" was to "fulfill the corresponding functions, especially in > relation to ICANN/IANA competencies," to address "international public > policy issues that do not fall within the scope of other existing > intergovernmental organizations" (meaning CIR), and "could make the > Governmental Advisory Committee redundant;" and model 4's World > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was to exercise an > "oversight function over the body responsible, at the global level, > for the technical and operational functioning of Internet (ICANN)" and > replace GAC. It was pretty clear to everyone what we were talking about. But you said above that IGC, and presumable others, were also talking about non CIR issues. We all know what were the hot and the contested issue, but that does not take away other important governance requirements. > So when you suggest we need to look at these, and have a workshop > proposal that says "present governance structures grew out of certain > historical contexts" and need "democratic internationalization," it > seemed reasonable to conclude you were talking about ICANN. If you > meant more than that I stand corrected, but I the ws description and > discussion here seemed to suggest otherwise. The workshop proposal clearly say that Internet is no longer just a technical artifact but much more, which suggests that we are also speaking about things beyond technical governance, and therefore beyond CIR. > > So which other governance structures was the language alluding to? The real problem here I think is that we seem to see 'political oversight' of ICANN-plus in a vacuum. In fact such oversight in not only connected with but actually arises out of other political IG issues - IPR/ public domain, cultural diversity, FoE, security, development needs etc . So 'oversight' and other global Internet policy issues, to a good extent, need to be seen in one bunch. The only *legitimate* reason that someone with 'political oversight' over CIR management has for exercising such oversight arises from one or the other such political considerations. In that sense any institutional structure for 'oversight' of ICANN-plus will necessarily be discussing such other public policy issues that IGC pushed for in WGIG and which are even more important to decide/ resolve in a globally democratic manner today. > It'd be helpful to know, since the IGC will need to agree what the > session's about if it's approved. Since IGC pushed for these other (non CIR) public policy issues to be included in definition of IG space, I think there must be a fair idea about such issues. We also had a workshop last year on transnational Internet. I do not think the idea of need for global governance in IG arena regarding non CIR issues is that elusive. But yes a discussion on this in the IGC is certainly going to be very useful. Undemocratically negotiated cyber-security treaty, and now the anti-counterfeiting trade treaty, are all pointers to what we are talking about here. The manner in which such things are being done now are certainly much worse than a situation where WGIG 1, 3 or 4 models are in some way involved. I don't think that CS's best strategy is to keep saying ITU is bad, ICANN is not ok in exercising political sovereignty, ACTA is not a right way to do things, without any suggestions or even discussions of possible alternatives. I presume you have problems with all these institutional forms of dealing with global Internet related policies. If so, what in your opinion is the best way to go ahead? Will be glad to hear them. Non-governance is not an option. These are the issues that the workshop will deal with apart from problems with US's unilateral oversight of the ICANN. Parminder >> >> >> >And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution >> necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present >> arrangements are not >democratic enough. There are a lot of other >> bases upon which to critique and call for reforms. >> >> Which ones are these 'other bases'? The only real problem for me with >> a political governance structure can be that either it is not >> democratic or not effective. Without a clear democratic underpinning, >> concepts like transparency, accountability are meaningless, mostly >> even deluding. And when democratic underpinning of a system itself is >> in question that 'basis' of reform comes first, before all these >> other dependent 'bases'. > > One can argue for global public interest objectives and criteria > without framing them in terms of "democratization," and indeed the > caucus has long done so. We've argued for balancing inter-national > interests, business/public interests, transparency, accountability, > inclusive MS participation, and so on without such grounding. None of > which is incompatible with your conception of the term, it's just that > there's no necessarily intrinsic equation of the terms. > > Ok, need to listen to the Russian minister... > > Best, > > Bill > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 28 04:57:54 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:57:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in Brussels on May 6 Message-ID: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> Hi, the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the IGF public consultations? The website for the meeting: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 Brussels – Charlemagne Building , Room DURI 09:30 Registration & coffee 10:00 Introduction by the Commission 10.30 WSIS 11.15 Security & stability 12.00 The role of governments 12.45 Round up morning discussion 13.00 Lunch 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance 15:45 Coffee break 16:00 Digital divide 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion 17:00 Concluding remarks *** Theme description 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 05:25:16 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:55:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in In-Reply-To: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hello Jeanette Hoffman, The themes for discussion states Security and Stability as a priority and the theme description on Security and Stability is 'leading' ( like a 'leading' question that prompts a desired response). Security and Stability are emphasized, but Privacy is nowhere in view. The theme description on "The Role of Public Authorities" is emphatic as well. I couldn't miss the implication of the question "should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities?" And in the same passage hints at a possible conclusion "private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary" The theme description on Accountability and Legitimacy points out that "many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes" and in the context of the emphasis on security, role of public authorities, private sector leadership, I would take this as an inclination to belittle the users and users' representative groups. Inclusion of "internationalization of Internet Governance" and "Digital Divide", including the question "Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how?" are very positive. In the context of the visible mood of the EU to legislate and legislate new rules and more rules on Internet regulation, I am prone to be a little cautious about how the hearings would go. Perhaps the caucus could emphasize that the hearing should redefine its questions on User participation, independent organizations as also include and equally emphasize aspects such as Openness, Privacy and other core civic values. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in Brussels > on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an invitation but cannot > attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, can send somebody else. Would > anybody be able and willing to go? > > We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the issues > on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write and agree on > a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to contribute slightly amended > version of one of our statements for the IGF public consultations? > > The website for the meeting: > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: > > Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 > Brussels – Charlemagne Building , Room DURI > > > 09:30 Registration & coffee > 10:00 Introduction by the Commission > 10.30 WSIS > 11.15 Security & stability > 12.00 The role of governments > 12.45 Round up morning discussion > 13.00 Lunch > 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy > 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance > 15:45 Coffee break > 16:00 Digital divide > 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion > 17:00 Concluding remarks > > *** > Theme description > 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation > of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that > should be addressed? > 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. > What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing about them > in particular with a view to their international dimension? > 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in > particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the > importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if > any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should > self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely > monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent > are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy > making complementary and necessary components for the effective management > of the Internet? > 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory > governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, > if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, > even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make > governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, > if so, how? > 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or > necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles > from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, > how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular > legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the > jurisdiction concerned? > 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely from > developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be > adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of > those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making > processes and, if so, how? > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Apr 28 06:00:17 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:00:17 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG In-Reply-To: <49F59A39.1050809@itforchange.net> References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> <49EEEFB7.3050206@itforchange.net> <85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch> <49F59A39.1050809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <65A8C687-5148-49A9-ABA4-E03D0E26017E@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Parminder, On Apr 27, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Parminder wrote: >> > The workshop proposal clearly say that Internet is no longer just a > technical artifact but much more, which suggests that we are also > speaking about things beyond technical governance, and therefore > beyond CIR. I am probably not alone in failing to read 'no longer just a technical artifact' as meaning we're proposing a ws on xyz issues and institutions beyond CIR. Which is why I asked several times for clearer specification of what we're talking about. >> >> So which other governance structures was the language alluding to? > The real problem here I think is that we seem to see 'political > oversight' of ICANN-plus in a vacuum. In fact such oversight in not > only connected with but actually arises out of other political IG > issues - IPR/ public domain, cultural diversity, FoE, security, > development needs etc . So 'oversight' and other global Internet > policy issues, to a good extent, need to be seen in one bunch. I've never heard the term 'oversight' being used in relation to non- ICANN issues, which in many cases do have authoritative institutions and rule systems. But again, if we're going to propose this more expansive formulation, it'd be helpful to specify which issues are thought not to have oversight now and what form that might take. > > >> I do not think the idea of need for global governance in IG arena >> regarding non CIR issues is that elusive. Nope, and indeed there is such GG in many cases now. But the MAG and potential attendees might not read oversight as meaning this, so hopefully if the ws is approved we can submit language that more clearly specifies the scope and domain. >> But yes a discussion on this in the IGC is certainly going to be >> very useful. Yup > > Undemocratically negotiated cyber-security treaty, and now the anti- > counterfeiting trade treaty, are all pointers to what we are talking > about here. FMI, are there any treaties or governance instruments that you would consider to be democratic? > The manner in which such things are being done now are certainly > much worse than a situation where WGIG 1, 3 or 4 models are in some > way involved. I don't think that CS's best strategy is to keep > saying ITU is bad, ICANN is not ok in exercising political > sovereignty, ACTA is not a right way to do things, without any > suggestions or even discussions of possible alternatives. Strongly agree, criticizing is relatively easy, suggesting politically and functionally superior alternatives is much harder, and were we ever to manage this it could attract some attention and discussion. > I presume you have problems with all these institutional forms of > dealing with global Internet related policies. Well, there are problems and then there PROBLEMS, and for each of us which applies probably varies significantly across cases. > If so, what in your opinion is the best way to go ahead? Will be > glad to hear them. Non-governance is not an option. These are the > issues that the workshop will deal with apart from problems with > US's unilateral oversight of the ICANN. This is sort of a big question. The best way forward depends on the case at hand, I don't see an uber-solution to the entire problematique, framework convention or otherwise. Although a broad scope mechanism for transparent information aggregation and collective assessment could have been useful. That's what some of us hoped the IGF could evolve into, and discussing what this might of meant could be useful even if its chances of happening are pretty much zero. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be Tue Apr 28 06:46:05 2009 From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:46:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in Brussels In-Reply-To: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <49F6DE6D.6090408@skynet.be> Dear Jeanette: I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. Regards to you all, Christopher. ---------------------------- Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in > Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an > invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, > can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? > > We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the > issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write > and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to > contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the > IGF public consultations? > > The website for the meeting: > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: > > Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > 6 May 2009, 10:00 � 17:15 > Brussels � Charlemagne Building , Room DURI > > > 09:30 Registration & coffee > 10:00 Introduction by the Commission > 10.30 WSIS > 11.15 Security & stability > 12.00 The role of governments > 12.45 Round up morning discussion > 13.00 Lunch > 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy > 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance > 15:45 Coffee break > 16:00 Digital divide > 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion > 17:00 Concluding remarks > > *** > Theme description > 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation > of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS > that should be addressed? > 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. > What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing > about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? > 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in > particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of > the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What > lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. > should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be > more closely monitored by governments and relevant public > authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and > stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and > necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? > 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory > governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What > problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do > not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it > necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider > international community and, if so, how? > 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or > necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective > roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the > Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the > imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might > disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? > 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely from > developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance > mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? > Should the interests of those who don�t yet have Internet access be > represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: ISOC_EP_IGFPRESENTATION_FIN Type: application/pdf Size: 94939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 28 06:50:10 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:50:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in Brussels In-Reply-To: <49F6DE6D.6090408@skynet.be> References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> <49F6DE6D.6090408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49F6DF62.3090501@wzb.eu> Hi Christopher, you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? I've been told there is one place left we can fill. As usual, no funding available. jeanette Christopher Wilkinson wrote: > Dear Jeanette: > > I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation to > the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. > > Regards to you all, > > Christopher. > > ---------------------------- > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >> >> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write >> and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >> IGF public consultations? >> >> The website for the meeting: >> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >> >> >> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >> >> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >> 6 May 2009, 10:00 � 17:15 >> Brussels � Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >> >> >> 09:30 Registration & coffee >> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >> 10.30 WSIS >> 11.15 Security & stability >> 12.00 The role of governments >> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >> 13.00 Lunch >> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >> 15:45 Coffee break >> 16:00 Digital divide >> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >> 17:00 Concluding remarks >> >> *** >> Theme description >> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation >> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS >> that should be addressed? >> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >> about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? >> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in >> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of >> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What >> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. >> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be >> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory >> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do >> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it >> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >> international community and, if so, how? >> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective >> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely from >> developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >> Should the interests of those who don�t yet have Internet access be >> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >> >> 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 >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 28 06:55:18 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:55:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in In-Reply-To: References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <49F6E096.2020208@wzb.eu> Hi Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, security and stability is the first item on the agenda, if this can be interpreted the way you suggest I don't know. If you have the time, why don't you draft a comment? Depending on the comments you receive you could submit it as a caucus or an individual statement. jeanette Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Jeanette Hoffman, > > The themes for discussion states Security and Stability as a priority > and the theme description on Security and Stability is 'leading' ( like > a 'leading' question that prompts a desired response). Security and > Stability are emphasized, but Privacy is nowhere in view. > > The theme description on "The Role of Public Authorities" is emphatic as > well. I couldn't miss the implication of the question "should > self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more > closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities?" And > in the same passage hints at a possible conclusion "private sector > leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making > complementary and necessary" > > The theme description on Accountability and Legitimacy points out that > "many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the > governance processes" and in the context of the emphasis on security, > role of public authorities, private sector leadership, I would take this > as an inclination to belittle the users and users' representative groups. > > Inclusion of "internationalization of Internet Governance" and "Digital > Divide", including the question "Should the interests of those who don’t > yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes > and, if so, how?" are very positive. > > In the context of the visible mood of the EU to legislate and legislate > new rules and more rules on Internet regulation, I am prone to be a > little cautious about how the hearings would go. > > Perhaps the caucus could emphasize that the hearing should redefine its > questions on User participation, independent organizations as also > include and equally emphasize aspects such as Openness, Privacy and > other core civic values. > > Thank you. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, > > the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in > Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an > invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, > can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? > > We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the > issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to > write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to > contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the > IGF public consultations? > > The website for the meeting: > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: > > Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 > Brussels – Charlemagne Building , Room DURI > > > 09:30 Registration & coffee > 10:00 Introduction by the Commission > 10.30 WSIS > 11.15 Security & stability > 12.00 The role of governments > 12.45 Round up morning discussion > 13.00 Lunch > 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy > 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance > 15:45 Coffee break > 16:00 Digital divide > 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion > 17:00 Concluding remarks > > *** > Theme description > 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the > implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if > any, since WSIS that should be addressed? > 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU > priority. What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU > be doing about them in particular with a view to their international > dimension? > 3. The role of public authorities: How should public > authorities, in particular governments, respond to their > responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our > economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from > the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical > infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by > governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are > private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public > policy making complementary and necessary components for the > effective management of the Internet? > 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are > self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users > world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many > Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the > governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more > accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? > 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable > or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their > respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping > of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where > the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might > disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? > 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come > largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet > governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if > so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet > access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 28 08:07:58 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:37:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in In-Reply-To: <49F6E096.2020208@wzb.eu> References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> <49F6E096.2020208@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hello Jeanette, Yes, I am relatively free for the next few days to work on a draft. Hope there is a free argument on before a final draft emerges. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, > > security and stability is the first item on the agenda, if this can be > interpreted the way you suggest I don't know. > If you have the time, why don't you draft a comment? Depending on the > comments you receive you could submit it as a caucus or an individual > statement. > jeanette > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello Jeanette Hoffman, >> >> The themes for discussion states Security and Stability as a priority and >> the theme description on Security and Stability is 'leading' ( like a >> 'leading' question that prompts a desired response). Security and Stability >> are emphasized, but Privacy is nowhere in view. >> The theme description on "The Role of Public Authorities" is emphatic as >> well. I couldn't miss the implication of the question "should >> self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely >> monitored by governments and relevant public authorities?" And in the same >> passage hints at a possible conclusion "private sector leadership and >> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary" >> >> The theme description on Accountability and Legitimacy points out that >> "many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance >> processes" and in the context of the emphasis on security, role of public >> authorities, private sector leadership, I would take this as an inclination >> to belittle the users and users' representative groups. >> >> Inclusion of "internationalization of Internet Governance" and "Digital >> Divide", including the question "Should the interests of those who don’t yet >> have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if >> so, how?" are very positive. >> >> In the context of the visible mood of the EU to legislate and legislate >> new rules and more rules on Internet regulation, I am prone to be a little >> cautious about how the hearings would go. >> >> Perhaps the caucus could emphasize that the hearing should redefine its >> questions on User participation, independent organizations as also include >> and equally emphasize aspects such as Openness, Privacy and other core >> civic values. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >> >> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >> IGF public consultations? >> >> The website for the meeting: >> >> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >> >> >> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >> >> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >> 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 >> Brussels – Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >> >> >> 09:30 Registration & coffee >> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >> 10.30 WSIS >> 11.15 Security & stability >> 12.00 The role of governments >> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >> 13.00 Lunch >> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >> 15:45 Coffee break >> 16:00 Digital divide >> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >> 17:00 Concluding remarks >> >> *** >> Theme description >> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the >> implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if >> any, since WSIS that should be addressed? >> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU >> priority. What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU >> be doing about them in particular with a view to their international >> dimension? >> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public >> authorities, in particular governments, respond to their >> responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our >> economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from >> the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical >> infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by >> governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are >> private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public >> policy making complementary and necessary components for the >> effective management of the Internet? >> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are >> self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users >> world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many >> Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the >> governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more >> accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? >> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable >> or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their >> respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping >> of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where >> the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come >> largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet >> governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if >> so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet >> access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >> >> 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 >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 28 08:16:16 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:46:16 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of In-Reply-To: <65A8C687-5148-49A9-ABA4-E03D0E26017E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <49E2AC40.8070009@itforchange.net> <3AB00D1D-7BD5-487C-AE7E-194BFDD1B7B9@graduateinstitute.ch> <49E6B065.1010304@itforchange.net> <49EEEFB7.3050206@itforchange.net> <85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch> <49F59A39.1050809@itforchange.net> <65A8C687-5148-49A9-ABA4-E03D0E26017E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <49F6F390.3060304@itforchange.net> Hi Bill > > I am probably not alone in failing to read 'no longer just a technical > artifact' as meaning we're proposing a ws on xyz issues and > institutions beyond CIR. Which is why I asked several times for > clearer specification of what we're talking about. I have been trying my best to clarify, and I am happy to discuss this further. As you agree this is an important discussion to have. >> The real problem here I think is that we seem to see 'political >> oversight' of ICANN-plus in a vacuum. In fact such oversight in not >> only connected with but actually arises out of other political IG >> issues - IPR/ public domain, cultural diversity, FoE, security, >> development needs etc . So 'oversight' and other global Internet >> policy issues, to a good extent, need to be seen in one bunch. > > I've never heard the term 'oversight' being used in relation to > non-ICANN issues, which in many cases do have authoritative > institutions and rule systems. But again, if we're going to propose > this more expansive formulation, it'd be helpful to specify which > issues are thought not to have oversight now and what form that might > take. Oversight is connected to these issues, as we can see from the role formulation for the agency that does 'ICANNoversight' in various WGIG models. When you say 'in many cases do have authoritative institutions and rule systems' you are underestimating the new context that the Internet brings in, which is the whole point, or else we would not be spending so much time in this group or at the IGF etc, and would instead engage only with WIPOs and WTOs and ITUs of this world. Cyber-security treaty is a completely new thing with no international institutional home (yet). Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act (ACTA) is another one. An EU official whne asked why arent they doing this at WIPO said that ACTA was about enforcement, and WIPO isnt very conducive in this regard. Apart form other problems with this formulation, it is a fact that a lot of key internet related issues in ACTA are indeed unique, may have direct impact on individuals and firms and not just issues of negotiating overall trade/IP regimes as in the existing institutions you allude to. The 'trans-boundary Internet' workshop IGC sponsored last year raised many such issues that have urgent and important trans-national implications, but no way of resolving them is a fair and proper manner. What is your institutional proposal to deal with all those issues?? >> >>> I do not think the idea of need for global governance in IG arena >>> regarding non CIR issues is that elusive. > Nope, and indeed there is such GG in many cases now. But the MAG and > potential attendees might not read oversight as meaning this, so > hopefully if the ws is approved we can submit language that more > clearly specifies the scope and domain. Yes, lets work on developing such a language. This discussion may contribute to it. >> Undemocratically negotiated cyber-security treaty, and now the >> anti-counterfeiting trade treaty, are all pointers to what we are >> talking about here. > > > FMI, are there any treaties or governance instruments that you would > consider to be democratic? Any treaty that has at least all the governments on board, is clearly much more democratic than any other with a few governments negotiating a deal which will sooner or later become global in its application. And there are many treaties that are negotiating in this manner. I find your dismissive comment on lack of democracy in cyber-security treaty and ACTA a bit surprising. I am for moving beyond inter-governmental systems in IG area, but not having even all the governments on board is obviously much more unacceptable. What kind of 'development agenda in IG' one can speak about without seeking full representation of developing countries on the table, which starts with pointing out the undemocratic nature of present systems. > >> The manner in which such things are being done now are certainly much >> worse than a situation where WGIG 1, 3 or 4 models are in some way >> involved. I don't think that CS's best strategy is to keep saying >> ITU is bad, ICANN is not ok in exercising political sovereignty, ACTA >> is not a right way to do things, without any suggestions or even >> discussions of possible alternatives. > > Strongly agree, criticizing is relatively easy, suggesting politically > and functionally superior alternatives is much harder, and were we > ever to manage this it could attract some attention and discussion. I constantly do suggest possible ways to go forward. Unfortunately, despite repeated exhortations I haven't heard you on this issue, unless of course we hare happy with present systems. (I will discuss your 'transparent information aggregation and collective assessment' option given below a little later.) I think that if we push for internationalization of IG, even if ICAAN oversight is the starting point, we do move towards a new global body. Even EU is serious about Internationalisation, and they also apparently see it as being broader than ICANN. Quoting from agenda of forthcoming EU consultation "Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? " How is that you are simply not able to understand what internationalisation could mean, when so many others can? Anyway, any such global body in which such 'internationalisation' coheres, like the ones mentioned in WGIG models, will also begin to address uniquely Internet related transnational issues, which will be much more democratic way of doing it than what is happening now. Such an option is also better for civil society because this new body will almost certainly have much more space for civil society than the present inter-governmental systems.I can discuss these options more of you and/ or others show interest. But not exploring these or other new options at all we are either letting default old-world existing inter-gov systems take over IG, or supporting the neo-lib stance of no ((real and political) global gov. Neither is an acceptable option for me, and i dont think it is to most in this group. > >> If so, what in your opinion is the best way to go ahead? Will be glad >> to hear them. Non-governance is not an option. These are the issues >> that the workshop will deal with apart from problems with US's >> unilateral oversight of the ICANN. > > This is sort of a big question. The best way forward depends on the > case at hand, I don't see an uber-solution to the entire > problematique, framework convention or otherwise. Although a broad > scope mechanism for transparent information aggregation and collective > assessment could have been useful. That's what some of us hoped the > IGF could evolve into, and discussing what this might of meant could > be useful even if its chances of happening are pretty much zero. So basically after asking me to set forth the options I have in mind, you yourself duck the issue. And you keep on saying that what I am proposing is never clear enough. How is "a broad scope mechanism for transparent information aggregation and collective assessment" as a governance system for clarity :) ! Frankly, Bill, I have just no idea what you are speaking about. And since I have heeded your advice for clarity and gone to considerable length to expound some institutional options I think are worthy of consideration, why you too not make it clear what exactly are you speaking about here. I basically read your formulation as close to 'no governance' which is the principal neo-liberal take on global governance, but I may be wrong. Parminder > > Cheers, > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be Tue Apr 28 08:34:11 2009 From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:34:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in Brussels In-Reply-To: <49F6DF62.3090501@wzb.eu> References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> <49F6DE6D.6090408@skynet.be> <49F6DF62.3090501@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <49F6F7C3.2090406@skynet.be> Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is already on the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points that we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by tomorrow?), and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who actually speaks to these points. If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. CW Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? > I've been told there is one place left we can fill. > As usual, no funding available. > jeanette > > Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >> Dear Jeanette: >> >> I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation >> to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. >> >> Regards to you all, >> >> Christopher. >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >>> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >>> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >>> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >>> >>> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >>> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >>> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >>> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >>> IGF public consultations? >>> >>> The website for the meeting: >>> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >>> >>> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >>> 6 May 2009, 10:00 � 17:15 >>> Brussels � Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >>> >>> >>> 09:30 Registration & coffee >>> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >>> 10.30 WSIS >>> 11.15 Security & stability >>> 12.00 The role of governments >>> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >>> 13.00 Lunch >>> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >>> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >>> 15:45 Coffee break >>> 16:00 Digital divide >>> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >>> 17:00 Concluding remarks >>> >>> *** >>> Theme description >>> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation >>> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS >>> that should be addressed? >>> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >>> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >>> about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? >>> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in >>> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of >>> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What >>> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. >>> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be >>> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >>> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >>> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >>> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >>> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory >>> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >>> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do >>> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it >>> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >>> international community and, if so, how? >>> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >>> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective >>> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >>> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >>> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >>> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >>> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely >>> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >>> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >>> Should the interests of those who don�t yet have Internet access be >>> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 28 09:58:38 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:58:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in Brussels In-Reply-To: <49F7085E.7050705@info.fundp.ac.be> References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> <49F7085E.7050705@info.fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: <49F70B8E.5010302@wzb.eu> Hi Jacques and Christopher, the commission has asked attendees to present a statement. It would be good if any draft statements could be posted to this list. I am not in a position to decide who should speak on behalf of the caucus, I can only comment on potential caucus statements. Perhaps our coordinators have ideas how to proceed? jeanette Jacques Berleur wrote: > Dear Jeanette, > I could be available. Brussels is not too far from my place. But if you > got another answer, it is OK also. > Yours, > Jacques > > Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >> >> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write >> and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >> IGF public consultations? >> >> The website for the meeting: >> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >> >> >> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >> >> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >> 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 >> Brussels – Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >> >> >> 09:30 Registration & coffee >> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >> 10.30 WSIS >> 11.15 Security & stability >> 12.00 The role of governments >> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >> 13.00 Lunch >> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >> 15:45 Coffee break >> 16:00 Digital divide >> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >> 17:00 Concluding remarks >> >> *** >> Theme description >> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the >> implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if >> any, since WSIS that should be addressed? >> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >> about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? >> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, >> in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view >> of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What >> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. >> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be >> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are >> self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users >> world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many >> Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance >> processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to >> the wider international community and, if so, how? >> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective >> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely >> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >> Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be >> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >> >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kpeters at tldainc.org Tue Apr 28 11:41:06 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (Karl E. Peters) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:41:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Here's the "change" you've been waiting for... Message-ID: <20090428084106.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.f30b8abeae.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 28 12:40:03 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:40:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <1F5C9674DD9943B9A6F4D02CB44F568B@PCbureau> Hello all Sivasubramanian wrote : I find this far less positive ! The EC is still wondering whether those excluded from the net should be "represented" in the IG process ! Four years after Tunis and its Agenda and Declaration assuming the inclusiveness of those people it's hardly to understand ... and even more to support such a position. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in Hello Jeanette Hoffman, The themes for discussion states Security and Stability as a priority and the theme description on Security and Stability is 'leading' ( like a 'leading' question that prompts a desired response). Security and Stability are emphasized, but Privacy is nowhere in view. The theme description on "The Role of Public Authorities" is emphatic as well. I couldn't miss the implication of the question "should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities?" And in the same passage hints at a possible conclusion "private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary" The theme description on Accountability and Legitimacy points out that "many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes" and in the context of the emphasis on security, role of public authorities, private sector leadership, I would take this as an inclination to belittle the users and users' representative groups. Inclusion of "internationalization of Internet Governance" and "Digital Divide", including the question "Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how?" are very positive. In the context of the visible mood of the EU to legislate and legislate new rules and more rules on Internet regulation, I am prone to be a little cautious about how the hearings would go. Perhaps the caucus could emphasize that the hearing should redefine its questions on User participation, independent organizations as also include and equally emphasize aspects such as Openness, Privacy and other core civic values. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Hi, the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the IGF public consultations? The website for the meeting: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15 Brussels – Charlemagne Building , Room DURI 09:30 Registration & coffee 10:00 Introduction by the Commission 10.30 WSIS 11.15 Security & stability 12.00 The role of governments 12.45 Round up morning discussion 13.00 Lunch 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance 15:45 Coffee break 16:00 Digital divide 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion 17:00 Concluding remarks *** Theme description 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Apr 28 15:06:21 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:06:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in In-Reply-To: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> References: <49F6C512.1040304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7705BADF2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I have been invited to the EC meeting, not as a representative of IGC. So I hope the caucus can send someone else. I attach here the statement I have submitted to the meeting. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:58 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance > arrangements in Brussels on May 6 > > Hi, > > the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in > Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an > invitation > but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, can send > somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? > > We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the > issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time > to write > and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to > contribute > slightly amended version of one of our statements for the IGF public > consultations? > > The website for the meeting: > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/in > dex_en.htm > > > I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: > > Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > 6 May 2009, 10:00 - 17:15 > Brussels - Charlemagne Building , Room DURI > > > 09:30 Registration & coffee > 10:00 Introduction by the Commission > 10.30 WSIS > 11.15 Security & stability > 12.00 The role of governments > 12.45 Round up morning discussion > 13.00 Lunch > 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy > 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance > 15:45 Coffee break > 16:00 Digital divide > 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion > 17:00 Concluding remarks > > *** > Theme description > 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the > implementation of > WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that > should be addressed? > 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU > priority. What > are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing > about them > in particular with a view to their international dimension? > 3. The role of public authorities: How should public > authorities, in > particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in > view of the > importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? > What lessons, > if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should > self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more > closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To > what extent are private sector leadership and stronger > governmental and > public policy making complementary and necessary components for the > effective management of the Internet? > 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are > self-regulatory > governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What > problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet > users do not > participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it > necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider > international community and, if so, how? > 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or > necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective > roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of > the Internet > and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the > imposition of a > particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage > players from > outside the jurisdiction concerned? > 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come > largely from > developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance > mechanisms > be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the > interests of those who don't yet have Internet access be > represented in > the policy making processes and, if so, how? > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: EU-HLIG-Submission.doc Type: application/msword Size: 59904 bytes Desc: EU-HLIG-Submission.doc URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Apr 29 04:11:20 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:11:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <20090428084106.437683a8bc8cbf65b58fd4b40ea76a1e.f30b8abeae.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> The DOC has published a NOI for the JPA http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm Should the IGC send a comment? I would say Yes. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Apr 29 04:43:58 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:43:58 +1000 Subject: [governance] FYI - should IGC respond to DOC re JPA? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 29/04/09 6:11 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > The DOC has published a NOI for the JPA > > http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm > > Should the IGC send a comment? I would say Yes. > > Wolfgang Yes I would agree. Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement? NGOs in the past have taken two distinct lines 1. Some large North American NGOs have argued for continuance of the JPA citing several problems with ICANN. Those who argue for government regulation of all things Internet might favour this position in the absence of any transnational or international arrangements? Is one government better than no governments given that all governments is unlikely at this stage? 2. Most of the rest of us have argued on principle for removal of the JPA despite any problems evident with ICANN. We have until June 8. I can only see IGC agreeing to an argument on the latter lines - i.e. that despite any problems evident with ICANN the public interest is best served by ending the JPA. That gives us a government free ICANN at this stage subject only to the arrangements existent with GAC. So what would our statement look like? Would we support strengthening GAC as part of an argument for ending JPA and providing an ongoing vehicle for governmental involvement? Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement? 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 icggov at johnlevine.com Wed Apr 29 06:22:44 2009 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 29 Apr 2009 10:22:44 -0000 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20090429102244.70574.qmail@simone.iecc.com> In article <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E9E at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> you write: >The DOC has published a NOI for the JPA > >http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm > >Should the IGC send a comment? I would say Yes. FYI, US government agencies are not particularly interested in the opinions of non-resident non-citizens. I suspect that other countries' governments feel much the same way. Feel free to send comments which will be logged, then ignored. R's, John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Wed Apr 29 07:33:57 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:33:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI - should IGC respond to DOC re JPA? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> Hi all - thanks for posting Wolfgang I think it is a good idea to come up with a statement. There are many US-based or registered entities on this list. Perhaps they can submit responses directly, as well as the IGC doing a response. The questions in the RFC are actually quite interesting and just responding to those would probably be the most effective way of constructing a submission. Anriette On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 18:43 +1000, Ian Peter wrote: > > > On 29/04/09 6:11 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: > > > The DOC has published a NOI for the JPA > > > > http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm > > > > Should the IGC send a comment? I would say Yes. > > > > Wolfgang > > Yes I would agree. Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement? > > NGOs in the past have taken two distinct lines > > 1. Some large North American NGOs have argued for continuance of the JPA > citing several problems with ICANN. Those who argue for government > regulation of all things Internet might favour this position in the absence > of any transnational or international arrangements? Is one government better > than no governments given that all governments is unlikely at this stage? > > 2. Most of the rest of us have argued on principle for removal of the JPA > despite any problems evident with ICANN. > > We have until June 8. I can only see IGC agreeing to an argument on the > latter lines - i.e. that despite any problems evident with ICANN the public > interest is best served by ending the JPA. That gives us a government free > ICANN at this stage subject only to the arrangements existent with GAC. > > So what would our statement look like? Would we support strengthening GAC as > part of an argument for ending JPA and providing an ongoing vehicle for > governmental involvement? > > Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement? > > > 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Apr 29 08:01:47 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:01:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI - should IGC respond to DOC re JPA? In-Reply-To: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: Hi Anriette, I agree, and not just because there are USians on the list. The relevant NTIA staff actually do read and consider non-US views and certainly have been aware of IGC positions in the past. Obviously, if the weight of Congressional and domestic interest group opinion strongly favors continuing the JPA and the administration thinks there's no better alternative, views from abroad aren't going to override these factors. However, insofar as some of them may no longer be true, at least not to the same extent as before, international views (especially but not only governmental) could play a supporting role in a policy change. Cheers, Bill On Apr 29, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all - thanks for posting Wolfgang > > I think it is a good idea to come up with a statement. There are many > US-based or registered entities on this list. Perhaps they can submit > responses directly, as well as the IGC doing a response. > > The questions in the RFC are actually quite interesting and just > responding to those would probably be the most effective way of > constructing a submission. > > Anriette > > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 18:43 +1000, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> On 29/04/09 6:11 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> wrote: >> >>> The DOC has published a NOI for the JPA >>> >>> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm >>> >>> Should the IGC send a comment? I would say Yes. >>> >>> Wolfgang >> >> Yes I would agree. Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement? >> >> NGOs in the past have taken two distinct lines >> >> 1. Some large North American NGOs have argued for continuance of >> the JPA >> citing several problems with ICANN. Those who argue for government >> regulation of all things Internet might favour this position in the >> absence >> of any transnational or international arrangements? Is one >> government better >> than no governments given that all governments is unlikely at this >> stage? >> >> 2. Most of the rest of us have argued on principle for removal of >> the JPA >> despite any problems evident with ICANN. >> >> We have until June 8. I can only see IGC agreeing to an argument on >> the >> latter lines - i.e. that despite any problems evident with ICANN >> the public >> interest is best served by ending the JPA. That gives us a >> government free >> ICANN at this stage subject only to the arrangements existent with >> GAC. >> >> So what would our statement look like? Would we support >> strengthening GAC as >> part of an argument for ending JPA and providing an ongoing vehicle >> for >> governmental involvement? >> >> Any volunteers to come up with a draft statement? >> >> >> 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 Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Apr 29 08:34:46 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:34:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ziitrain on Facebook References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 29 09:49:27 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:49:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <20090429102244.70574.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090429102244.70574.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D770486B33@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Don't listen to John (another typically "helpful" contribution)). According to the very terms of the NOI, internationalization and furthering international participation in IG is one of the goals of the "transition." Also, many of the trademark/business interests are not the in the U.S. and they aren't bashful about speaking out. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:23 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > Subject: Re: [governance] FYI > > In article <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718E9E at server1.medienkomm.uni- > halle.de> you write: > >The DOC has published a NOI for the JPA > > > >http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm > > > >Should the IGC send a comment? I would say Yes. > > FYI, US government agencies are not particularly interested in the > opinions of non-resident non-citizens. I suspect that other > countries' governments feel much the same way. > > Feel free to send comments which will be logged, then ignored. > > R's, > John > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jfcallo at isocperu.org Wed Apr 29 12:22:52 2009 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:22:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ziitrain on Facebook In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20090429122252.hpj56atq2sgwcwo8@www.isocperu.org> Mr. Wolfgang: (English) It's easy to write, another thing is to show by example that the practice of democracy. (Spanish) Es facil escribir, otra cosa es demostrar con el ejemplo que se practica la democracia. Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 29 16:13:16 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:13:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in In-Reply-To: <49F6F7C3.2090406@skynet.be> Message-ID: I've discussed with Ginger and unless there are strong objections we recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at this event. As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at www.igcaucus.org (there is a page dedicated to these). That's probably a good starting point. On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" wrote: > Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... > > I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is already on > the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points that > we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) > edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I > imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by tomorrow?), > and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. > Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who > actually speaks to these points. > > If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. > > CW > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Christopher, >> >> you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? >> I've been told there is one place left we can fill. >> As usual, no funding available. >> jeanette >> >> Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >>> Dear Jeanette: >>> >>> I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation >>> to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. >>> >>> Regards to you all, >>> >>> Christopher. >>> >>> ---------------------------- >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >>>> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >>>> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >>>> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >>>> >>>> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >>>> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >>>> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >>>> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >>>> IGF public consultations? >>>> >>>> The website for the meeting: >>>> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >>>> >>>> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >>>> 6 May 2009, 10:00 ñ 17:15 >>>> Brussels ñ Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >>>> >>>> >>>> 09:30 Registration & coffee >>>> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >>>> 10.30 WSIS >>>> 11.15 Security & stability >>>> 12.00 The role of governments >>>> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >>>> 13.00 Lunch >>>> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >>>> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >>>> 15:45 Coffee break >>>> 16:00 Digital divide >>>> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >>>> 17:00 Concluding remarks >>>> >>>> *** >>>> Theme description >>>> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation >>>> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS >>>> that should be addressed? >>>> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >>>> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >>>> about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? >>>> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in >>>> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of >>>> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What >>>> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. >>>> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be >>>> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >>>> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >>>> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >>>> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >>>> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory >>>> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >>>> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do >>>> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it >>>> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >>>> international community and, if so, how? >>>> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >>>> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective >>>> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >>>> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >>>> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >>>> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >>>> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely >>>> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >>>> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >>>> Should the interests of those who donít yet have Internet access be >>>> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be Wed Apr 29 17:02:19 2009 From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:02:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, this morning I received and invitation, which simplifies matters. (The place is 10 minutes walk from our house.) i shall re-read all our statements tomorrow. Good night, CW On 29 Apr 2009, at 22:13, Ian Peter wrote: > I've discussed with Ginger and unless there are strong objections we > recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at this > event. > > As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at > www.igcaucus.org (there is a page dedicated to these). That's > probably a > good starting point. > > > > On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" > wrote: > >> Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... >> >> I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is >> already on >> the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points >> that >> we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) >> edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I >> imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by >> tomorrow?), >> and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. >> Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who >> actually speaks to these points. >> >> If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. >> >> CW >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Christopher, >>> >>> you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? >>> I've been told there is one place left we can fill. >>> As usual, no funding available. >>> jeanette >>> >>> Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >>>> Dear Jeanette: >>>> >>>> I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation >>>> to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. >>>> >>>> Regards to you all, >>>> >>>> Christopher. >>>> >>>> ---------------------------- >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >>>>> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >>>>> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the >>>>> IGC, >>>>> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >>>>> >>>>> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of >>>>> the >>>>> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >>>>> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >>>>> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for >>>>> the >>>>> IGF public consultations? >>>>> >>>>> The website for the meeting: >>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the >>>>> website: >>>>> >>>>> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >>>>> 6 May 2009, 10:00 ñ 17:15 >>>>> Brussels ñ Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 09:30 Registration & coffee >>>>> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >>>>> 10.30 WSIS >>>>> 11.15 Security & stability >>>>> 12.00 The role of governments >>>>> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >>>>> 13.00 Lunch >>>>> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >>>>> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >>>>> 15:45 Coffee break >>>>> 16:00 Digital divide >>>>> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >>>>> 17:00 Concluding remarks >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> Theme description >>>>> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the >>>>> implementation >>>>> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since >>>>> WSIS >>>>> that should be addressed? >>>>> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >>>>> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >>>>> about them in particular with a view to their international >>>>> dimension? >>>>> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public >>>>> authorities, in >>>>> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in >>>>> view of >>>>> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? >>>>> What >>>>> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial >>>>> crisis" (e.g. >>>>> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services >>>>> be >>>>> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >>>>> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >>>>> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >>>>> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >>>>> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self- >>>>> regulatory >>>>> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >>>>> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users >>>>> do >>>>> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? >>>>> Is it >>>>> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >>>>> international community and, if so, how? >>>>> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >>>>> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their >>>>> respective >>>>> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >>>>> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >>>>> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >>>>> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >>>>> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely >>>>> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >>>>> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >>>>> Should the interests of those who donít yet have Internet access >>>>> be >>>>> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 04:06:09 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:06:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ziitrain on Facebook In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0904300106v1700c89eye8a01385d63a3603@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Wolfgang for pointing us to this article. As a matter of fact, the US representative in the recent ITU World Telecom Policy Forum in Lisbon has used himself the analogy that Jonathan raises by saying explicitly : "if Facebook were a country, it would be the fifth largest". If Facebook is really 200 million registered users, it has indeed passed Brazil in the list of countries ranked by population. (see : http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl) Jonathan's points make sense and I have raised them in the IGF, in particular in Hyderabad, to highlight the fact that such companies "terms of service" are not traditional terms of service but become the law of the space for most users. The two questions that this brings are : - *What is the governance of such social networks* : the processes by which such terms of service are "elaborated and applied" (cf. the definition of Internet Governance), as they represent "principles, norms, decision-making procedures and programs" - and in this respect, Facebook is clearly taking unprecedented initiatives - *What relation with the web of national laws* : the articulation between those "company governance regimes" and the various national laws and legal jurisdictions that should apply. The Internet has evolved form the physical IP-based network used mostly for email and file transfer into the http/html-based World Wide Web used to access information. It is clearly reaching a third stage with social networking applications, creating a sort of SocioNet, that is looking for its appropriate governance protocols. This is the reason why, on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles, I have suggested a workshop theme for the next IGF, under the title : "The Governance of Social Media", precisely to address this type of issues. I hope it will be retained. Best Bertrand 2009/4/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 30 05:54:56 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:24:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> Ian and Ginger, Will due respect and thankfulness to Christopher's kind offer I am unable to clearly understand what would representing IGC at this meeting mean? I therefore request further clarity on this. The questions posed by EU are all very important issues with deep implications for the IG arena. I am not sure (1) if IGC has formed relatively clear and expressable views on these issues, and (2) even if it has done so in its earlier statements, how these views will be read and communicated. It is my view that IGC being represented by Christopher, who presumably has been invited in his capacity as the chair of ISOC-EU, will create some amount of confusion, without gaining anything substantial. It is important to note in this regard that OECD (and presumably EU, which consists of countries that are an important part of OECD) see ISOC chiefly to be from the technical community constituency, and recently it has created separate technical community and civil society constituencies in relation to its information society activities. IGC is of course seen to be from the civil society constituency. While I agree that ISOC has important CS aspects, we are working within a somewhat well established nomenclature/ categorization in this space and it is in our best interest to respect that for the present purpose. I would however very much like it if Christopher as an active IGC member can share information with us on what transpires at the meeting. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: > I've discussed with Ginger and unless there are strong objections we > recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at this > event. > > As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at > www.igcaucus.org (there is a page dedicated to these). That's probably a > good starting point. > > > > On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" > wrote: > > >> Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... >> >> I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is already on >> the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points that >> we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) >> edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I >> imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by tomorrow?), >> and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. >> Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who >> actually speaks to these points. >> >> If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. >> >> CW >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> Hi Christopher, >>> >>> you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? >>> I've been told there is one place left we can fill. >>> As usual, no funding available. >>> jeanette >>> >>> Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Jeanette: >>>> >>>> I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation >>>> to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. >>>> >>>> Regards to you all, >>>> >>>> Christopher. >>>> >>>> ---------------------------- >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >>>>> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >>>>> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >>>>> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >>>>> >>>>> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >>>>> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >>>>> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >>>>> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >>>>> IGF public consultations? >>>>> >>>>> The website for the meeting: >>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >>>>> >>>>> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >>>>> 6 May 2009, 10:00 ñ 17:15 >>>>> Brussels ñ Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 09:30 Registration & coffee >>>>> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >>>>> 10.30 WSIS >>>>> 11.15 Security & stability >>>>> 12.00 The role of governments >>>>> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >>>>> 13.00 Lunch >>>>> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >>>>> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >>>>> 15:45 Coffee break >>>>> 16:00 Digital divide >>>>> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >>>>> 17:00 Concluding remarks >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> Theme description >>>>> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation >>>>> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS >>>>> that should be addressed? >>>>> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >>>>> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >>>>> about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? >>>>> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in >>>>> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of >>>>> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What >>>>> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. >>>>> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be >>>>> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >>>>> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >>>>> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >>>>> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >>>>> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory >>>>> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >>>>> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do >>>>> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it >>>>> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >>>>> international community and, if so, how? >>>>> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >>>>> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective >>>>> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >>>>> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >>>>> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >>>>> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >>>>> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely >>>>> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >>>>> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >>>>> Should the interests of those who donít yet have Internet access be >>>>> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 30 06:12:50 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:12:50 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My understanding from the EU meeting is that this is more a "brainstorming" than a formal hearing where people present "positions". There will be several people from the Caucus on the table. I do not see a need at this point to present a formal IGC statement, but it would be good if the various IGC members participate actively in the brainstorming also by making clear that they are linked to the IGC, which would be good to show other stakeholders, that the IGC is a active stakeholder, has good ideas and good people. I will be there, will speak as an individual expert but will make clear that CS and the IGC should be adequatly (in its respectuive role) in the future activities. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Do 30.04.2009 11:54 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Christopher Wilkinson; Jeanette Hofmann Betreff: Re: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in Ian and Ginger, Will due respect and thankfulness to Christopher's kind offer I am unable to clearly understand what would representing IGC at this meeting mean? I therefore request further clarity on this. The questions posed by EU are all very important issues with deep implications for the IG arena. I am not sure (1) if IGC has formed relatively clear and expressable views on these issues, and (2) even if it has done so in its earlier statements, how these views will be read and communicated. It is my view that IGC being represented by Christopher, who presumably has been invited in his capacity as the chair of ISOC-EU, will create some amount of confusion, without gaining anything substantial. It is important to note in this regard that OECD (and presumably EU, which consists of countries that are an important part of OECD) see ISOC chiefly to be from the technical community constituency, and recently it has created separate technical community and civil society constituencies in relation to its information society activities. IGC is of course seen to be from the civil society constituency. While I agree that ISOC has important CS aspects, we are working within a somewhat well established nomenclature/ categorization in this space and it is in our best interest to respect that for the present purpose. I would however very much like it if Christopher as an active IGC member can share information with us on what transpires at the meeting. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: I've discussed with Ginger and unless there are strong objections we recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at this event. As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at www.igcaucus.org (there is a page dedicated to these). That's probably a good starting point. On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" wrote: Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is already on the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points that we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by tomorrow?), and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who actually speaks to these points. If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. CW Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Hi Christopher, you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? I've been told there is one place left we can fill. As usual, no funding available. jeanette Christopher Wilkinson wrote: Dear Jeanette: I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. Regards to you all, Christopher. ---------------------------- Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Hi, the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the IGF public consultations? The website for the meeting: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements 6 May 2009, 10:00 ñ 17:15 Brussels ñ Charlemagne Building , Room DURI 09:30 Registration & coffee 10:00 Introduction by the Commission 10.30 WSIS 11.15 Security & stability 12.00 The role of governments 12.45 Round up morning discussion 13.00 Lunch 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance 15:45 Coffee break 16:00 Digital divide 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion 17:00 Concluding remarks *** Theme description 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed? 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how? 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of those who donít yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 30 06:22:02 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:22:02 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> Hi, in case I caused a misunderstanding I'd like to point out that the Commission did not invite the caucus per so to present a statement. I was told that I could suggest someone else in place of me. This is why suggested that a member of the caucus might want to go. Independently of that, I also asked if the caucus wants to submit a statement. If we have no statement, we, or more precisely one of us, can still make use of the empty seat. jeanette Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > My understanding from the EU meeting is that this is more a "brainstorming" than a formal hearing where people present "positions". There will be several people from the Caucus on the table. I do not see a need at this point to present a formal IGC statement, but it would be good if the various IGC members participate actively in the brainstorming also by making clear that they are linked to the IGC, which would be good to show other stakeholders, that the IGC is a active stakeholder, has good ideas and good people. I will be there, will speak as an individual expert but will make clear that CS and the IGC should be adequatly (in its respectuive role) in the future activities. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Gesendet: Do 30.04.2009 11:54 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Christopher Wilkinson; Jeanette Hofmann > Betreff: Re: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in > > > Ian and Ginger, > > Will due respect and thankfulness to Christopher's kind offer I am unable to clearly understand what would representing IGC at this meeting mean? I therefore request further clarity on this. > > The questions posed by EU are all very important issues with deep implications for the IG arena. I am not sure (1) if IGC has formed relatively clear and expressable views on these issues, and (2) even if it has done so in its earlier statements, how these views will be read and communicated. > > It is my view that IGC being represented by Christopher, who presumably has been invited in his capacity as the chair of ISOC-EU, will create some amount of confusion, without gaining anything substantial. It is important to note in this regard that OECD (and presumably EU, which consists of countries that are an important part of OECD) see ISOC chiefly to be from the technical community constituency, and recently it has created separate technical community and civil society constituencies in relation to its information society activities. IGC is of course seen to be from the civil society constituency. While I agree that ISOC has important CS aspects, we are working within a somewhat well established nomenclature/ categorization in this space and it is in our best interest to respect that for the present purpose. > > I would however very much like it if Christopher as an active IGC member can share information with us on what transpires at the meeting. > > > Parminder > > Ian Peter wrote: > > I've discussed with Ginger and unless there are strong objections we > recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at this > event. > > As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at > www.igcaucus.org (there is a page dedicated to these). That's probably a > good starting point. > > > > On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" > wrote: > > > > Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... > > I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is already on > the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points that > we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) > edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I > imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by tomorrow?), > and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. > Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who > actually speaks to these points. > > If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. > > CW > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi Christopher, > > you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? > I've been told there is one place left we can fill. > As usual, no funding available. > jeanette > > Christopher Wilkinson wrote: > > > Dear Jeanette: > > I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation > to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. > > Regards to you all, > > Christopher. > > ---------------------------- > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in > Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an > invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, > can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? > > We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the > issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to > write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to > contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the > IGF public consultations? > > The website for the meeting: > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm > > > > I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: > > Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > 6 May 2009, 10:00 ñ 17:15 > Brussels ñ Charlemagne Building , Room DURI > > > 09:30 Registration & coffee > 10:00 Introduction by the Commission > 10.30 WSIS > 11.15 Security & stability > 12.00 The role of governments > 12.45 Round up morning discussion > 13.00 Lunch > 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy > 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance > 15:45 Coffee break > 16:00 Digital divide > 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion > 17:00 Concluding remarks > > *** > Theme description > 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation > of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS > that should be addressed? > 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. > What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing > about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? > 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in > particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of > the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What > lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. > should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be > more closely monitored by governments and relevant public > authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and > stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and > necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? > 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory > governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What > problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do > not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it > necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider > international community and, if so, how? > 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or > necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective > roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the > Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the > imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might > disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? > 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely > from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance > mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? > Should the interests of those who donít yet have Internet access be > represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? > > 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 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 30 06:29:55 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:29:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Final Call - 3rd European Summer School on Internet Governance References: <004f01c9c7f5$89e87e40$9db97ac0$@eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EC0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Last chance to apply for the: 3rd European Summer School on Internet Governance The call for application for the 3rd European School on Internet Governance is extended until May 15, 2009. This course is scheduled for July 26 - August 1, 2009 in Meissen / Germany. All details can be found under www.euro-ssig.eu Feel free to spread this call to whom it may concern. Wolfgang Kleinwächter Contact: wolfgang at imv.au.dk info at hoferichter.eu www.issig.eu www.euro-ssig.eu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 40556 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be Thu Apr 30 06:34:50 2009 From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:34:50 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements In-Reply-To: <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4E29B753-F701-424E-B99C-3CB46C6C7EDD@skynet.be> No problem. Let us leave it at that. Best regards to you all, CW On 30 Apr 2009, at 12:22, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, in case I caused a misunderstanding I'd like to point out that > the Commission did not invite the caucus per so to present a > statement. I was told that I could suggest someone else in place of > me. This is why suggested that a member of the caucus might want to > go. Independently of that, I also asked if the caucus wants to > submit a statement. If we have no statement, we, or more precisely > one of us, can still make use of the empty seat. > > jeanette > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> My understanding from the EU meeting is that this is more a >> "brainstorming" than a formal hearing where people present >> "positions". There will be several people from the Caucus on the >> table. I do not see a need at this point to present a formal IGC >> statement, but it would be good if the various IGC members >> participate actively in the brainstorming also by making clear that >> they are linked to the IGC, which would be good to show other >> stakeholders, that the IGC is a active stakeholder, has good ideas >> and good people. I will be there, will speak as an individual >> expert but will make clear that CS and the IGC should be adequatly >> (in its respectuive role) in the future activities. >> Wolfgang >> ________________________________ >> Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Gesendet: Do 30.04.2009 11:54 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson; Jeanette Hofmann >> Betreff: Re: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance >> arrangements in >> Ian and Ginger, >> Will due respect and thankfulness to Christopher's kind offer I am >> unable to clearly understand what would representing IGC at this >> meeting mean? I therefore request further clarity on this. The >> questions posed by EU are all very important issues with deep >> implications for the IG arena. I am not sure (1) if IGC has formed >> relatively clear and expressable views on these issues, and (2) >> even if it has done so in its earlier statements, how these views >> will be read and communicated. It is my view that IGC being >> represented by Christopher, who presumably has been invited in >> his capacity as the chair of ISOC-EU, will create some amount of >> confusion, without gaining anything substantial. It is important to >> note in this regard that OECD (and presumably EU, which consists of >> countries that are an important part of OECD) see ISOC chiefly to >> be from the technical community constituency, and recently it has >> created separate technical community and civil society >> constituencies in relation to its information society activities. >> IGC is of course seen to be from the civil society constituency. >> While I agree that ISOC has important CS aspects, we are working >> within a somewhat well established nomenclature/ categorization in >> this space and it is in our best interest to respect that for the >> present purpose. I would however very much like it if Christopher >> as an active IGC member can share information with us on what >> transpires at the meeting. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: I've >> discussed with Ginger and unless there are strong objections we >> recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at >> this >> event. >> >> As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at >> www.igcaucus.org (there is a page >> dedicated to these). That's probably a >> good starting point. >> >> >> >> On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" >> > > wrote: >> >> Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... >> >> I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is >> already on >> the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points >> that >> we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: >> (a) >> edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website >> - I >> imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by >> tomorrow?), >> and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. >> Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who >> actually speaks to these points. >> >> If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. >> >> CW >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Christopher, >> >> you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? >> I've been told there is one place left we can fill. >> As usual, no funding available. >> jeanette >> >> Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >> Dear Jeanette: >> >> I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our >> presentation >> to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. >> >> Regards to you all, >> >> Christopher. >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance >> in >> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, >> the IGC, >> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >> >> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any >> of the >> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make >> sense to >> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements >> for the >> IGF public consultations? >> >> The website for the meeting: >> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >> >> >> >> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the >> website: >> >> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >> 6 May 2009, 10:00 ñ 17:15 >> Brussels ñ Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >> >> >> 09:30 Registration & coffee >> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >> 10.30 WSIS >> 11.15 Security & stability >> 12.00 The role of governments >> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >> 13.00 Lunch >> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >> 15:45 Coffee break >> 16:00 Digital divide >> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >> 17:00 Concluding remarks >> >> *** >> Theme description >> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the >> implementation >> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since >> WSIS >> that should be addressed? >> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU >> priority. >> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be >> doing >> about them in particular with a view to their international >> dimension? >> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public >> authorities, in >> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in >> view of >> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? >> What >> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial >> crisis" (e.g. >> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and >> services be >> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >> necessary components for the effective management of the >> Internet? >> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self- >> regulatory >> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet >> users do >> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? >> Is it >> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >> international community and, if so, how? >> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it >> desirable or >> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their >> respective >> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come >> largely >> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet >> governance >> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >> Should the interests of those who donít yet have Internet >> access be >> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 30 10:20:15 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:20:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] Ziitrain on Facebook In-Reply-To: <954259bd0904300106v1700c89eye8a01385d63a3603@mail.gmail.com> References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0904300106v1700c89eye8a01385d63a3603@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49F9B39F.2050406@rits.org.br> Fine, but let us remind ourselves that it is *not* a country ;) --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Thanks Wolfgang for pointing us to this article. > > As a matter of fact, the US representative in the recent ITU World Telecom > Policy Forum in Lisbon has used himself the analogy that Jonathan raises by > saying explicitly : "if Facebook were a country, it would be the fifth > largest". If Facebook is really 200 million registered users, it has indeed > passed Brazil in the list of countries ranked by population. (see : > http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl) > > Jonathan's points make sense and I have raised them in the IGF, in > particular in Hyderabad, to highlight the fact that such companies "terms of > service" are not traditional terms of service but become the law of the > space for most users. > > The two questions that this brings are : > - *What is the governance of such social networks* : the processes by which > such terms of service are "elaborated and applied" (cf. the definition of > Internet Governance), as they represent "principles, norms, decision-making > procedures and programs" - and in this respect, Facebook is clearly taking > unprecedented initiatives > - *What relation with the web of national laws* : the articulation between > those "company governance regimes" and the various national laws and legal > jurisdictions that should apply. > > The Internet has evolved form the physical IP-based network used mostly for > email and file transfer into the http/html-based World Wide Web used to > access information. It is clearly reaching a third stage with social > networking applications, creating a sort of SocioNet, that is looking for > its appropriate governance protocols. > > This is the reason why, on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet > Rights and Principles, I have suggested a workshop theme for the next IGF, > under the title : "The Governance of Social Media", precisely to address > this type of issues. I hope it will be retained. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > 2009/4/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 11:26:23 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:26:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ziitrain on Facebook In-Reply-To: <49F9B39F.2050406@rits.org.br> References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0904300106v1700c89eye8a01385d63a3603@mail.gmail.com> <49F9B39F.2050406@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <954259bd0904300826u50da13f1kf1958ee8f700daa2@mail.gmail.com> Carlos, Sorry for the comparison with Brazil :-)) Was just to verify Dick Beaird's statement. France anyway is far below and not concerned in that numbers race. Of course it is NOT a country ;-) B. 2009/4/30 Carlos Afonso > Fine, but let us remind ourselves that it is *not* a country ;) > > --c.a. > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Thanks Wolfgang for pointing us to this article. >> >> As a matter of fact, the US representative in the recent ITU World Telecom >> Policy Forum in Lisbon has used himself the analogy that Jonathan raises >> by >> saying explicitly : "if Facebook were a country, it would be the fifth >> largest". If Facebook is really 200 million registered users, it has >> indeed >> passed Brazil in the list of countries ranked by population. (see : >> http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl) >> >> Jonathan's points make sense and I have raised them in the IGF, in >> particular in Hyderabad, to highlight the fact that such companies "terms >> of >> service" are not traditional terms of service but become the law of the >> space for most users. >> >> The two questions that this brings are : >> - *What is the governance of such social networks* : the processes by >> which >> such terms of service are "elaborated and applied" (cf. the definition of >> Internet Governance), as they represent "principles, norms, >> decision-making >> procedures and programs" - and in this respect, Facebook is clearly taking >> unprecedented initiatives >> - *What relation with the web of national laws* : the articulation between >> those "company governance regimes" and the various national laws and legal >> jurisdictions that should apply. >> >> The Internet has evolved form the physical IP-based network used mostly >> for >> email and file transfer into the http/html-based World Wide Web used to >> access information. It is clearly reaching a third stage with social >> networking applications, creating a sort of SocioNet, that is looking for >> its appropriate governance protocols. >> >> This is the reason why, on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet >> Rights and Principles, I have suggested a workshop theme for the next IGF, >> under the title : "The Governance of Social Media", precisely to address >> this type of issues. I hope it will be retained. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> 2009/4/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >> >> http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> >> >> > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 30 12:22:14 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:22:14 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> Dear all A far as I understand there was no formal invitation to the CS involved in IG or generally in Internet issues for participating in this "hearing". If I'm right this is a first point to raise. Second, as for the preceding ITRE Hearing, the announcement (to whom ?) was made just one week before the meeting. Third, all these "hearings" don't replace an actual European IGF, promised to the EU citizens in January last year, because of their obvious lack of the most basic multistakeholder principles and of a minimum of respect to the CS, i.a. through an invitation in due form and period of time. Therefore, the urgent setting-up of an actual Euro-IGF is the third point that should be strongly raised by (one of) our WSIS CS member(s). These CS concerns should be forcefully stressed especially a couple of weeks before the EP poll, which -as nobody ignores- will be a popular flop in likely all of the 27 member countries. The way the European top constituencies are treating European citizens through their CS organizations (e.g. see above) isn't the adequate incentive to reverse this regretable trend ! They probably prefer their 12 000 or so "accredited" lobbyists whose offices surround the Brussels EU buildings and who are far more discrete. Who is still talking about transparency ? Thus, please, these citizens' concerns should be expressed by our CS participant with the same conviction as the IG or Internet related issues. If they fail in this way, these CS members may be "experts" or other likes, but they cannot claim they are part of, and represent the WSIS involved CS in such an event. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeanette Hofmann" To: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Cc: ; "Parminder" ; "Ian Peter" ; "Christopher Wilkinson" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:22 PM Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > > Hi, in case I caused a misunderstanding I'd like to point out that the > Commission did not invite the caucus per so to present a statement. I was > told that I could suggest someone else in place of me. This is why > suggested that a member of the caucus might want to go. Independently of > that, I also asked if the caucus wants to submit a statement. If we have > no statement, we, or more precisely one of us, can still make use of the > empty seat. > > jeanette > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> My understanding from the EU meeting is that this is more a >> "brainstorming" than a formal hearing where people present "positions". >> There will be several people from the Caucus on the table. I do not see a >> need at this point to present a formal IGC statement, but it would be >> good if the various IGC members participate actively in the brainstorming >> also by making clear that they are linked to the IGC, which would be good >> to show other stakeholders, that the IGC is a active stakeholder, has >> good ideas and good people. I will be there, will speak as an individual >> expert but will make clear that CS and the IGC should be adequatly (in >> its respectuive role) in the future activities. >> Wolfgang >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Gesendet: Do 30.04.2009 11:54 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson; Jeanette Hofmann >> Betreff: Re: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in >> >> >> Ian and Ginger, >> >> Will due respect and thankfulness to Christopher's kind offer I am unable >> to clearly understand what would representing IGC at this meeting mean? I >> therefore request further clarity on this. The questions posed by EU are >> all very important issues with deep implications for the IG arena. I am >> not sure (1) if IGC has formed relatively clear and expressable views on >> these issues, and (2) even if it has done so in its earlier statements, >> how these views will be read and communicated. It is my view that IGC >> being represented by Christopher, who presumably has been invited in >> his capacity as the chair of ISOC-EU, will create some amount of >> confusion, without gaining anything substantial. It is important to note >> in this regard that OECD (and presumably EU, which consists of countries >> that are an important part of OECD) see ISOC chiefly to be from the >> technical community constituency, and recently it has created separate >> technical community and civil society constituencies in relation to its >> information society activities. IGC is of course seen to be from the >> civil society constituency. While I agree that ISOC has important CS >> aspects, we are working within a somewhat well established nomenclature/ >> categorization in this space and it is in our best interest to respect >> that for the present purpose. I would however very much like it if >> Christopher as an active IGC member can share information with us on what >> transpires at the meeting. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: I've discussed with >> Ginger and unless there are strong objections we >> recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at this >> event. >> >> As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at >> www.igcaucus.org (there is a page dedicated >> to these). That's probably a >> good starting point. >> >> >> >> On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" >> >> wrote: >> >> Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... >> >> I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is already on >> the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points that >> we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) >> edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I >> imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by tomorrow?), >> and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. >> Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who >> actually speaks to these points. >> >> If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. >> >> CW >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Christopher, >> >> you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? >> I've been told there is one place left we can fill. >> As usual, no funding available. >> jeanette >> >> Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >> Dear Jeanette: >> >> I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation >> to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. >> >> Regards to you all, >> >> Christopher. >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >> >> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >> IGF public consultations? >> >> The website for the meeting: >> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >> >> >> >> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >> >> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >> 6 May 2009, 10:00 ñ 17:15 >> Brussels ñ Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >> >> >> 09:30 Registration & coffee >> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >> 10.30 WSIS >> 11.15 Security & stability >> 12.00 The role of governments >> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >> 13.00 Lunch >> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >> 15:45 Coffee break >> 16:00 Digital divide >> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >> 17:00 Concluding remarks >> >> *** >> Theme description >> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation >> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS >> that should be addressed? >> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >> about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? >> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in >> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of >> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What >> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. >> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be >> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory >> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do >> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it >> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >> international community and, if so, how? >> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective >> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely >> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >> Should the interests of those who donít yet have Internet access be >> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >> >> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 30 13:21:52 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:21:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Ziitrain on Facebook In-Reply-To: <954259bd0904300826u50da13f1kf1958ee8f700daa2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0904300106v1700c89eye8a01385d63a3603@mail.gmail.com> <49F9B39F.2050406@rits.org.br> <954259bd0904300826u50da13f1kf1958ee8f700daa2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49F9DE30.9030702@rits.org.br> Dear Bertrand, do not worry about these comparisons. Lately, the only comparisons that make me worry or excited are the ones involving C.R. Flamengo (my soccer team) and any other team. How could they miss so many goal opportunities last night?!? On the other hand, it is fascinating how these social networking systems could go farther. Twitter, for example, could allow the formation, not of simple groups, but of safe circles of trust, in which each twitting sequence within the circle could be part or subject of a ranking, voting or decision-making system. Can you imagine, short dialogues to decide on things? :) --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Carlos, > > Sorry for the comparison with Brazil :-)) Was just to verify Dick Beaird's > statement. France anyway is far below and not concerned in that numbers > race. > > Of course it is NOT a country ;-) > > B. > > 2009/4/30 Carlos Afonso > >> Fine, but let us remind ourselves that it is *not* a country ;) >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> Thanks Wolfgang for pointing us to this article. >>> >>> As a matter of fact, the US representative in the recent ITU World Telecom >>> Policy Forum in Lisbon has used himself the analogy that Jonathan raises >>> by >>> saying explicitly : "if Facebook were a country, it would be the fifth >>> largest". If Facebook is really 200 million registered users, it has >>> indeed >>> passed Brazil in the list of countries ranked by population. (see : >>> http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl) >>> >>> Jonathan's points make sense and I have raised them in the IGF, in >>> particular in Hyderabad, to highlight the fact that such companies "terms >>> of >>> service" are not traditional terms of service but become the law of the >>> space for most users. >>> >>> The two questions that this brings are : >>> - *What is the governance of such social networks* : the processes by >>> which >>> such terms of service are "elaborated and applied" (cf. the definition of >>> Internet Governance), as they represent "principles, norms, >>> decision-making >>> procedures and programs" - and in this respect, Facebook is clearly taking >>> unprecedented initiatives >>> - *What relation with the web of national laws* : the articulation between >>> those "company governance regimes" and the various national laws and legal >>> jurisdictions that should apply. >>> >>> The Internet has evolved form the physical IP-based network used mostly >>> for >>> email and file transfer into the http/html-based World Wide Web used to >>> access information. It is clearly reaching a third stage with social >>> networking applications, creating a sort of SocioNet, that is looking for >>> its appropriate governance protocols. >>> >>> This is the reason why, on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet >>> Rights and Principles, I have suggested a workshop theme for the next IGF, >>> under the title : "The Governance of Social Media", precisely to address >>> this type of issues. I hope it will be retained. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> 2009/4/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >>> >>> http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > -- ------------------------------------------------ Carlos A. Afonso Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits www.rits.org.br www.rets.org.br www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br www.ritsnet.org.br ------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 30 13:43:58 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:13:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ziitrain on Facebook In-Reply-To: <954259bd0904300826u50da13f1kf1958ee8f700daa2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1241004837.4304.17.camel@anriette-laptop> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EAC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0904300106v1700c89eye8a01385d63a3603@mail.gmail.com> <49F9B39F.2050406@rits.org.br> <954259bd0904300826u50da13f1kf1958ee8f700daa2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49F9E35E.6010707@itforchange.net> http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf Also a bit scary to hear about 'citizenship of Facebook', then it will be of Google, and then of second life.... Paradigmatic instance of (obviously controlled) democracy within a private system, rather than private enterprises within a democratic system. Our social systems are really changing :) BTW, could not get the exact implication of what is meant to say that if 30 percent members vote it will be binding on Facebook. It is that if at one stage 30 percent voted that, say, the Wikipedia Foundation take over Facebook that will be binding. Not being cynical, but think such reflections are also important and necessary as brave new frontiers of 'participation' and 'citizenship' are explored. . Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Carlos, > > Sorry for the comparison with Brazil :-)) Was just to verify Dick > Beaird's statement. France anyway is far below and not concerned in > that numbers race. > > Of course it is NOT a country ;-) > > B. > > 2009/4/30 Carlos Afonso > > > Fine, but let us remind ourselves that it is *not* a country ;) > > --c.a. > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Thanks Wolfgang for pointing us to this article. > > As a matter of fact, the US representative in the recent ITU > World Telecom > Policy Forum in Lisbon has used himself the analogy that > Jonathan raises by > saying explicitly : "if Facebook were a country, it would be > the fifth > largest". If Facebook is really 200 million registered users, > it has indeed > passed Brazil in the list of countries ranked by population. > (see : > http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl) > > Jonathan's points make sense and I have raised them in the IGF, in > particular in Hyderabad, to highlight the fact that such > companies "terms of > service" are not traditional terms of service but become the > law of the > space for most users. > > The two questions that this brings are : > - *What is the governance of such social networks* : the > processes by which > such terms of service are "elaborated and applied" (cf. the > definition of > Internet Governance), as they represent "principles, norms, > decision-making > procedures and programs" - and in this respect, Facebook is > clearly taking > unprecedented initiatives > - *What relation with the web of national laws* : the > articulation between > those "company governance regimes" and the various national > laws and legal > jurisdictions that should apply. > > The Internet has evolved form the physical IP-based network > used mostly for > email and file transfer into the http/html-based World Wide > Web used to > access information. It is clearly reaching a third stage with > social > networking applications, creating a sort of SocioNet, that is > looking for > its appropriate governance protocols. > > This is the reason why, on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on > Internet > Rights and Principles, I have suggested a workshop theme for > the next IGF, > under the title : "The Governance of Social Media", precisely > to address > this type of issues. I hope it will be retained. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > 2009/4/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > > > > http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance